Scott Peterson's appeal

[enlightenme]

Just throwing something out here - she could have heard it because Scott said it. Just sayin'.


Ya think? Heaven knows Scott would NEVER lie unless it was about his affair, cuz' that's what all adulter's do. Even when their glorious spouse is MISSING.

:shrug:

[TopGunner]

You want to play "what if", I can play too. "What if" that wasn't the exact phrase Scott used. "What if" he actually said 'I was golfing' or 'I played a round of golf' or 'I was playing golf'. I doubt Amy wrote down the exact terminology Scott used so your point isn't even valid. She didn't misunderstand -- Scott goofed.



DD - great post. It's confusing to ME, why this is being posted about as if it's NEW NEWS and we're trying to figure out if it's just the talking heads or not. This is OLD OLD OLD news, not disputed before, during, or since - except from the Petersons in their newsletter, and we all know how accurate that is. :no:


Four days before Laci vanished, Distaso said, Peterson bought his first salt-water fishing pole.

"It's not at all set up for any of the things he was supposedly fishing for that morning. ... He bought it as prop," Distaso said.

Peterson had said fishing was a last-minute decision, instead of golfing that morning when he awoke to cold, wet conditions.

"If that's true, why is this (fishing) license filled out for December 23rd and December 24th," Distaso said.

When he got home, Peterson told neighbors he had been golfing all morning. He repeated the story to one of Laci's relatives before telling police he had been fishing.

"I don't care how upset you are ... nobody forgets that you just got home from fishing," Distaso said.

[adnoid]

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".

Well, since we weren't there but we know better than the people that were, I'll give it a shot:

Amy? Amy? Can you hear me now, Amy? Are you there? Sorry, they're, uh, the music - Amy? Um, ah, well, I was...Amy? Can you hear me? Yeah, um, ahhh, I was golfing...Amy? Are you there? Amy? Ok, I was...Amy? yeah, it's incredible, I was golfing all...Amy? Are you there? Amy? Yeah, I was..Amy? Can you hear me? Yeah, I was golfing all...Amy, listen to me, OK? Amy? Can you hear me now? Amy? Look, let me explain. I was golfing...Amy? Amy? Can you hear me? I want to explain it to you...Amy? Can you hear me?

[deputydi]

That logic doesn't work. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afromneg.html) <snip>

I love this! Isn't it also called "circular logic"?

[cookiewench]

How could anyone be as just plain dumb as Scott Peterson?

Just the fact that he said it was too cold for golfing so he went fishing instead is enough to set off a battalion of hinky meters. That - along with the fact that he had no plans to golf with anyone but himself that day. No phone calls to any friends to see if they wanted to golf with him - no plans, no tee time set up.

The other way around would have made sense - but it's common knowledge that it's always colder/windier/wetter out on the water than whatever it's like on land.

Wasn't the high that day somewhere in the 40's? What "avid golfer" would think that's too cold to golf - and why would Scott have, the night before, assume that it was going to be warmer on the 24th than it was on the 23rd?

[TopGunner]

How could anyone be as just plain dumb as Scott Peterson?

Just the fact that he said it was too cold for golfing so he went fishing instead is enough to set off a battalion of hinky meters. That - along with the fact that he had no plans to golf with anyone but himself that day. No phone calls to any friends to see if they wanted to golf with him - no plans, no tee time set up.

The other way around would have made sense - but it's common knowledge that it's always colder/windier/wetter out on the water than whatever it's like on land.

Wasn't the high that day somewhere in the 40's? What "avid golfer" would think that's too cold to golf - and why would Scott have, the night before, assume that it was going to be warmer on the 24th than it was on the 23rd?



Cookie, ya know what? I've just about had it with you making all this sense, I mean REALLY - you know THE RULES, so just knock it off already. :seeya:

[adnoid]

I love this! Isn't it also called "circular logic"?

You are thinking of begging the question (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html) (In the proper usage, not the common).

(I enjoy this stuff!)

[Miss Bootsie]

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..

lol, I kinda think Distaso agrees with Dr. Peterson.

According to the trial record that can be considered evidence, and the trial testimony heard by the Jury, Conner's body was not decomposed.

Not so fast on the agree to disagree.
I asked this question in my reply to your post, but wanted to make sure you see it.

Bacteria plays a major role 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?

[deputydi]

How could anyone be as just plain dumb as Scott Peterson?<snip>
I agree with TG. This kind of logic shouldn't be allowed here. ;)

O/T just for a sec. I know we have a bunch of pet lovers on these boards so I just wanted my cyber friends to know that the little dog who has been my avatar passed over the rainbow bridge this morning. His name was Pierre and he was a 14 yr old Papillon and the canine love of my life. Please say a prayer for him.

[deputydi]

You are thinking of begging the question (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html) (In the proper usage, not the common).

(I enjoy this stuff!)
I stand corrected and bow to your superior knowledge (and linking ability). :cool:

[TopGunner]

I agree with TG. This kind of logic shouldn't be allowed here. ;)

O/T just for a sec. I know we have a bunch of pet lovers on these boards so I just wanted my cyber friends to know that the little dog who has been my avatar passed over the rainbow bridge this morning. His name was Pierre and he was a 14 yr old Papillon and the canine love of my life. Please say a prayer for him.



Awww........DD, I am so sorry, so very sorry. They are our babies, our children, I know you must be really hurting. Your Pierre is in my prayers (and you too). {{{{{{{{{{{{{{{hug}}}}}}}}}}}}} :rose:

[enlightenme]

I agree with TG. This kind of logic shouldn't be allowed here. ;)

O/T just for a sec. I know we have a bunch of pet lovers on these boards so I just wanted my cyber friends to know that the little dog who has been my avatar passed over the rainbow bridge this morning. His name was Pierre and he was a 14 yr old Papillon and the canine love of my life. Please say a prayer for him.


I'm so sorry deputydi! They are parts of us and part of the family. God bless and I know he had a happy life!

Prayers for you, I think he's happy over the rainbow bridge.

Hugs.

[Hey Paula]

I agree with TG. This kind of logic shouldn't be allowed here. ;)

O/T just for a sec. I know we have a bunch of pet lovers on these boards so I just wanted my cyber friends to know that the little dog who has been my avatar passed over the rainbow bridge this morning. His name was Pierre and he was a 14 yr old Papillon and the canine love of my life. Please say a prayer for him.

I'm so sorry you lost Pierre, DD! I know he's in canine heaven with my toy poodle Beau Jacques, whom I lost many years ago and will forever love.

:rose: Thinking of Pierre, who was simply "adogable" !!

[cookiewench]

O/T just for a sec. I know we have a bunch of pet lovers on these boards so I just wanted my cyber friends to know that the little dog who has been my avatar passed over the rainbow bridge this morning. His name was Pierre and he was a 14 yr old Papillon and the canine love of my life. Please say a prayer for him.


I'm so sorry to hear that, di.

[adnoid]

I stand corrected and bow to your superior knowledge (and linking ability). :cool:

There's always Marlene's favorite (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html) (first form). The full discussion is worth reading.

We lost our beloved Giant Schnauzer just over a year ago - my thoughts are with you. Losing one who gives unconditional love leaves quite a hole in our hearts.

[deputydi]

Thanks everyone. Even tho' my heart is broken, I know he is a healthy, happy pup again and has found Beau Jacques and lots of new friends to romp with. I can't begin to explain how a little 6 lb dog can leave such a huge empty space in a house and in my heart.

[adnoid]

...I can't begin to explain how a little 6 lb dog can leave such a huge empty space in a house and in my heart.

Because he loved you so much.

[Lavindar]

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?[/COLOR][/COLOR]
Craig Grogan: Yes. Where does Geragos gives the Bates Stamp numbrer? I do not see that. Notice how Geragos asks two questions right on top of each other. I believe Grogan is answering the second one - Geragos does NOT give him the opportunity to answer the first one. Tricky technique and he uses it often. Particularly when DJ did NOT tell the defense investigator anything about a safe. And if you read the testimony, he was quoting an interview that DJ gave to the DEFENSE INVESTIGATOR in January, not the police. Odd that they didn't ask her about the safe since it's so essential to the Garegos spin.

Since you appear to have not read this when I posted it before, I will post it again for you:

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.

[TopGunner]

Thanks everyone. Even tho' my heart is broken, I know he is a healthy, happy pup again and has found Beau Jacques and lots of new friends to romp with. I can't begin to explain how a little 6 lb dog can leave such a huge empty space in a house and in my heart.


DD, maybe he was only 6 lbs but his love was great big. I have a 4 lb and a 6 lb chahuahua. 2 beagles also. The 4 pounder OWNS us, rules the roost - and believe me, having owned shepards and husky's most my life, never in my wildest dreams did I think these little pips would make up in love/personality what they lack in physical size. Btw - we have all four due to Gretchen, our 15 year old shepard who crossed the bridge a few years ago. Now they're all together. :rose:

[PsychNurse;~)]

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.






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.

Yes, Mr. Distaso, I couldn't agree with you more.:beer:




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.

the biggest issues i have with aw2b's 'reasonable doubt' issues is that i cannot see them being reasonable--not even close to being as reasonable as the case put forth by the prosecution.

aw2b says it's unreasonable that isp dumped laci in the bay during the day on the 24th; despite the marina being nearly deserted.

aw2b says it's more reasonable that laci was kept in a bathtub for months, despite the smell, etc that would have overwhelmed the building from putrification.

aw2b says it's more reasonable that someone managed to dismember laci's head well below the shoulders as well as several limbs without leaving a single tool mark--stating decomposition would account for lack of tool marks even though bones wouldn't decompose like that.

aw2b says that while tool marks disappeared due to decomposition, the lack of fish nibble/bite marks prove laci wasn't in the bay.

aw2b insists conner was decomposed even though the testimony clearly states he was liquified internally but macerated/swollen externally, consistent with a sterile environment protecting his body.

aw2b finds it unreasonable that conner was expelled through the top of laci's abraded uterus despite the medical examiner's testimony.

aw2b finds it more reasonable that someone sliced into laci above her belly button, at the base of her rib cage, sliced open the fundus of her uterus just wide enough for conner to pass through, then reached their hands into laci's upper abdomen against the rib cage and then reached their hands straight down into her uterus without tearing it wide open and pulled conner directly up and out of her uterus and then pulled him out at a 90 degree angle at the base of her rib cage.

aw2b finds it unreasonable that laci and conner washed ashore after a storm but finds it more reasonable to believe that someone actually carried laci's decomposed, disarticulated remains down to a rocky area where it might have been pulled back out with the tide, AND then carried conner's swollen remains with collapsed head and placed it a mile away from laci's remains. both bodies in areas where people walk their dogs.

i seriously would love to have seen geragos try to put that theory forward during the trial.

cyn

[TopGunner]

Where does Geragos gives the Bates Stamp numbrer? I do not see that. Notice how Geragos asks two questions right on top of each other. I believe Grogan is answering the second one - Geragos does NOT give him the opportunity to answer the first one. Tricky technique and he uses it often. Particularly when DJ did NOT tell the defense investigator anything about a safe. And if you read the testimony, he was quoting an interview that DJ gave to the DEFENSE INVESTIGATOR in January, not the police. Odd that they didn't ask her about the safe since it's so essential to the Garegos spin.



Lavindar, ITA. And this is where I DO give Geregos credit. He came out of the gate with a bang, his Hollywood spin w/words burried a few, but because that's all it was, a SPIN, he couldn't sustain it. When he started to run out of creative wording, he went south like a freight train going down hill.

[ekg]

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..

no it doesn't sound right at all..... maybe "I was out golfing all day" .... but I agree it just doesn't sound right.

[PsychNurse;~)]

and let's not forget that after performing the most unheard of c-section on earth and dismembering her, these mystery killers actually redressed her!

cyn

[ekg]

Sigh, when I hit quote, it won't load, so I'll do it the old-fashioned way.

AW2B Said:



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.

I don't believe uncle Harvey for a minute..

and 2 of your ppl aren't truly independent....


I don't think Amie heard 'golfin' I think she was mistaken and b/c she was mistaken nd Terra was 10ft or so away I think Terra heard what Amie said and not what Scott said...

[TopGunner]

and let's not forget that after performing the most unheard of c-section on earth and dismembering her, these mystery killers actually redressed her!

cyn


Right, and NOT in the cloths she was wearing that day (per ISP), but they somehow got IN the house and figured out what she was wearing the night before and redressed her in those cloths. :biggrin:

OMG......I am dizzy.

[ekg]

Why can't you just accept the fact that he SAID "golfing" and she HEARD "golfing".

I guess it's kinda like that argument awhile ago about Wall's testimony.... I believed him when he said he if asked, he could tell who was online that morning... but others said he didn't really mean that or he was mistaken...

we all have our 'quirks' in this case I guess..:shrug:

[PsychNurse;~)]

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..

then the exterior of conner's body would not have been swollen/macerated from autolysis, it would have decomposed in a totally different process.

cyn

[Hey Paula]

Including cooking up a batch of special-order vegetarian tortellini for the neighbor, no less!

I think Scott was hoping for tort reform. :biggrin:

IMO

[Lavindar]

[QUOTE=Miss Bootsie;8901331]

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

Preliminary testimony was not heard by the jury and cannot be used in an appeal. I see anattempt to prove a point using information that was never in the trial. Whether Amy knew Scott golfed or not is irrelevant - she testified as did Tara that They HEARD Scott say he was golfing, not that he was golfishing, Harvey Kemple also testified that Scott told him he was golfing. The jurors are not ALLOWED to ASSUME that Amie knew Scott was a golfer. That's blatantly against the instructions given to the jury. They have to go with the fact that she Heard Scott say golfing.' You can't assume or make things up and think they will change the outcome of this trial or even get him a new one.

Stick to the rules. If you can't prove it with testimony from the trial, not the preliminary or links, don't say it.

[Lavindar]

I think Scott was hoping for tort reform. :biggrin:

IMO

So thoughtful of him to make a special vegetarian dinner for his neighbor for Christmas. That Scott is quite a guy, isn't he.

[Lavindar]

I guess it's kinda like that argument awhile ago about Wall's testimony.... I believed him when he said he if asked, he could tell who was online that morning... but others said he didn't really mean that or he was mistaken...

we all have our 'quirks' in this case I guess..:shrug: THey KNOW that what someone testifies under oath has no meaning if it doesn't agree with what Scott said I guess.

[Wearing A Halo]

I agree with TG. This kind of logic shouldn't be allowed here. ;)

O/T just for a sec. I know we have a bunch of pet lovers on these boards so I just wanted my cyber friends to know that the little dog who has been my avatar passed over the rainbow bridge this morning. His name was Pierre and he was a 14 yr old Papillon and the canine love of my life. Please say a prayer for him.

I am sorry for your loss of Pierre.

[I'mSun]

I agree with TG. This kind of logic shouldn't be allowed here. ;)

O/T just for a sec. I know we have a bunch of pet lovers on these boards so I just wanted my cyber friends to know that the little dog who has been my avatar passed over the rainbow bridge this morning. His name was Pierre and he was a 14 yr old Papillon and the canine love of my life. Please say a prayer for him.
I'm sorry to hear this, DD. Our pets are such a big part of our lives.

[adnoid]

So thoughtful of him to make a special vegetarian dinner for his neighbor for Christmas. That Scott is quite a guy, isn't he.

Such a gentleman.

[adnoid]

I think Scott was hoping for tort reform...

I'll refrain from any limp noodle remarks.

For now.

[attorneywan2be]

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.

I take issue with what you said --->"but you already know that"..I know and I believe in what I posted..

It is clear to me that the ME meant by what was present and what was absent as in "what was still there and what was missing from the body"

This is what he said, he used the terms "absent" and "present" and it is in line with my interpretation of what he meant by absent and present..


27 And at first note, much of the body was absent. What I
28 had to examine was the torso, I had portions of both upper

1462
1 extremities, I had portions of the lower extremities,
2 however, the head and neck were absent, the forearms and
3 hands were absent, and the left lower leg, the tibia, the
4 fibula and the foot, those things were all absent . So what
5 I had was the rest to deal with.

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

from the waist down, beginning at
18 about the level of the bellybutton, or the umbilicus, the
19 skin was absent, the fat was still present,

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

the organs within the chest were absent, most of the
20 organs within the abdomen were absent. No liver, spleen,
21 kidneys, pancreas, intestines. All those things were gone.
22 What was present, however, was the uterus.

[ekg]

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!

how does the dog play into it for you?

do you think he hooked him up to the leash and let him go to make it look like Laci was taken while walking him? and then when he got home and saw the dog there he what? panicked and decided to eat piazza,take a shower and wash some clothes to make it look normal?

I would think the dog would have been the one reason he could say he freak immediately.... "OMG Laci was supposed to walk the dog, and he's here with the leash on, the house is dark and her stuff is here, have you seen or talked to her?"

but no, he still takes his time a lets the perfect opportunity pass him by..??

[attorneywan2be]

Well, since we weren't there but we know better than the people that were, I'll give it a shot:

Amy? Amy? Can you hear me now, Amy? Are you there? Sorry, they're, uh, the music - Amy? Um, ah, well, I was...Amy? Can you hear me? Yeah, um, ahhh, I was golfing...Amy? Are you there? Amy? Ok, I was...Amy? yeah, it's incredible, I was golfing all...Amy? Are you there? Amy? Yeah, I was..Amy? Can you hear me? Yeah, I was golfing all...Amy, listen to me, OK? Amy? Can you hear me now? Amy? Look, let me explain. I was golfing...Amy? Amy? Can you hear me? I want to explain it to you...Amy? Can you hear me?



LOL


That was very funny!! I disagree.. but I'll give you a beer for that...:beer:

[ekg]

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".

exactly...... thank you..

AK in the prelim

Q. Okay. And what -- did he say anything else at that time? I mean -- let me just ask you this: Did he tell you what he had been doing all day?

A. He had said that he was golfing all day, and that he had tried to call her all day, so --

Q

[ekg]

Including cooking up a batch of special-order vegetarian tortellini for the neighbor, no less!

yeah....... that was strange...

[attorneywan2be]

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.

Snip

I realize that opening statements and closing arguments are not evidence..

I quoted the ME's testimony..I quoted Distaso's opening statement..I quoted Distaso's CLOSING argument...I wanted to indicate to you that the ME said that Conner was decomposed and that even Distaso agreed that Conner was decomposed...in fact, he said in his closing argument, which is AFTER the ME's testimony, that Conner was decomposed EXTREMELY!

As I said, I will have to agree to disagree..I think we have already said everything that could be said about that subject..

[Miss Bootsie]

the biggest issues i have with aw2b's 'reasonable doubt' issues is that i cannot see them being reasonable--not even close to being as reasonable as the case put forth by the prosecution.

aw2b says it's unreasonable that isp dumped laci in the bay during the day on the 24th; despite the marina being nearly deserted.

aw2b says it's more reasonable that laci was kept in a bathtub for months, despite the smell, etc that would have overwhelmed the building from putrification.

aw2b says it's more reasonable that someone managed to dismember laci's head well below the shoulders as well as several limbs without leaving a single tool mark--stating decomposition would account for lack of tool marks even though bones wouldn't decompose like that.

aw2b says that while tool marks disappeared due to decomposition, the lack of fish nibble/bite marks prove laci wasn't in the bay.

aw2b insists conner was decomposed even though the testimony clearly states he was liquified internally but macerated/swollen externally, consistent with a sterile environment protecting his body.

aw2b finds it unreasonable that conner was expelled through the top of laci's abraded uterus despite the medical examiner's testimony.

aw2b finds it more reasonable that someone sliced into laci above her belly button, at the base of her rib cage, sliced open the fundus of her uterus just wide enough for conner to pass through, then reached their hands into laci's upper abdomen against the rib cage and then reached their hands straight down into her uterus without tearing it wide open and pulled conner directly up and out of her uterus and then pulled him out at a 90 degree angle at the base of her rib cage.

aw2b finds it unreasonable that laci and conner washed ashore after a storm but finds it more reasonable to believe that someone actually carried laci's decomposed, disarticulated remains down to a rocky area where it might have been pulled back out with the tide, AND then carried conner's swollen remains with collapsed head and placed it a mile away from laci's remains. both bodies in areas where people walk their dogs.

i seriously would love to have seen geragos try to put that theory forward during the trial.

cyn


lol,You left out that Laci was forced to continuously urinate in her pants. The urine formed the mineral deposits.

I agree and have the same issue with the theory.
The theory is just not reasonable.:confused:

Another issue I have is being stuck on a certain statement by an expert witness and refusing to accept additional testimony that provides a detailed explanation.

[cookiewench]

how does the dog play into it for you?

do you think he hooked him up to the leash and let him go to make it look like Laci was taken while walking him? and then when he got home and saw the dog there he what? panicked and decided to eat piazza,take a shower and wash some clothes to make it look normal?

I would think the dog would have been the one reason he could say he freak immediately.... "OMG Laci was supposed to walk the dog, and he's here with the leash on, the house is dark and her stuff is here, have you seen or talked to her?"

but no, he still takes his time a lets the perfect opportunity pass him by..??

Yes - he let the dog out with the intention of him being found and returned. This would be his "evidence" of his Laci-walking-the-dog alibi.

This is all an indication of his guilt and his sociopathy. He was acting in the way that he THOUGHT a concerned man would act, but he had no clue.

But whether the dog was there with his leash on or not, Scott should have been very, very concerned - and for all the other reasons you've listed above.

But he also had to wash his clothes and take a shower to get any evidence (blood, cement, hair, etc.) off of his person.

So.....he played it cool and acted as if it would have been perfectly normal for Laci to be at her parent's house without him, even though the scene would have told him that she'd been gone all day and that something was very, very wrong.

[Miss Bootsie]

I realize that opening statements and closing arguments are not evidence..

I quoted the ME's testimony..I quoted Distaso's opening statement..I quoted Distaso's CLOSING argument...I wanted to indicate to you that the ME said that Conner was decomposed and that even Distaso agreed that Conner was decomposed...in fact, he said in his closing argument, which is AFTER the ME's testimony, that Conner was decomposed EXTREMELY!

As I said, I will have to agree to disagree..I think we have already said everything that could be said about that subject..

Well no, not quite everything has been said.
You failed to answer a question that I have asked you twice in previous posts.
You don't just run out on a discussion when the person you are debating with asks you a reasonable question in a respectful manner.

Will you please answer the question.
Thanks......


Bacteria plays a major part in decomposition.
You claim Conner was stored submerged in a plastic bag -The perfect environment for adiopocere to form.
If the body went through a bacterial putrefaction process=(decomposition), as you claim, why wasn't there adiopocere?

[attorneywan2be]

Where does Geragos gives the Bates Stamp numbrer? I do not see that. Notice how Geragos asks two questions right on top of each other. I believe Grogan is answering the second one - Geragos does NOT give him the opportunity to answer the first one. Tricky technique and he uses it often. Particularly when DJ did NOT tell the defense investigator anything about a safe. And if you read the testimony, he was quoting an interview that DJ gave to the DEFENSE INVESTIGATOR in January, not the police. Odd that they didn't ask her about the safe since it's so essential to the Garegos spin.

Since you appear to have not read this when I posted it before, I will post it again for you:

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.

Geragos was referring to a police report Bates stamped 14765...then they had to talk to the judge regarding Diane Jackson's report being offered for the truth..


Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, the, specifically she had phoned in a call to the command center as well. And pointing you to 14765. And she said that on 12/24 at 11:40 she saw the van and a safe being removed from the house, correct?
Birgit Fladager: Your Honor, at this point, I hate to do this, but I'd ask to go side bar.
Judge Delucchi: We can't have it side bar because we have to have it on the record. We have to go into chambers. If you want to come into chambers, we'll get this sorted out and do that now. I'm going to ask the jury to remain seated. You don't have to get up. This won't take very long. I think I've already ruled on this, in my recollection, back in the cobwebs of my mind. I think I already ruled on this, but I'll be glad to revisit it again so everybody's on the same page. So why don't we just go into chambers, and I'll entertain everything you've got to say; and (to the reporter) you bring in your, okay.
<hearing in chambers>
Judge Delucchi’s instructions to the Jury on the Diane Jackson evidence
Judge Delucchi: All right. Let the record show these proceedings are taking place in the courtroom. The defendant is present with counsel, and the jury is in the jury box, along with the alternates. Ladies and gentlemen, the court has made a ruling about the introduction of this evidence. The district attorney's requested me to remind you again that this evidence is being offered to explain the reasonableness of,
Mark Geragos: Actually, this is not. Diane Jackson is for the truth, is what the court did indicate.
Judge Delucchi: I don't think so.
Mark Geragos: I think so. Diane Jackson
Judge Delucchi: No, no. We'll have to go back in there, because,
Mark Geragos: Okay. Diane Jackson is for the truth.
Judge Delucchi: No, I don't think so.
Mark Geragos: Okay. We'll go back in?
Judge Delucchi: Then we'll go back in because if it's for the truth, there's a real issue whether it's going to come in.
Mark Geragos: Okay.
Judge Delucchi: All right. We'll have to go back. We didn't decide that issue, okay
<hearing in Chambers>
Judge Delucchi’s instructions to the Jury on the Diane Jackson evidence
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.

[cookiewench]

How much credibility does a person who first said she saw a couple of men in the street and a van (a common sight) and then says she witnessed a burglary have?

I think that Geragos knew that Diane Jackson was a nut, and he would have hated for her to have been called as a witness.

[attorneywan2be]

Well, no, not quite everything has been said.
You failed to answer a question that I have asked you twice in previous posts.
You don't just run out on a debate when the person you are debating with asks you a reasonable question.

Will you please answer the question.
Thanks......


Bacteria plays a major part in decomposition.
You claim Conner was stored submerged in a plastic bag -The perfect environment for adiopocere to form.
If the body went through a bacterial putrefaction process=(decomposition), as you claim, why wasn't there adiopocere?

I didn't notice that question..

Anyhow, IMO, since there was an opening at the top of the uterus, Conner would have been exposed to bay water...yet, there was no adipocere on Conner..adipocere forms in about 3 weeks in bodies submerged in water...
if anything, that indicates to me that he was not in the uterus in the bay..on the other hand, if he was in a plastic bag, he would have been dry for the first 2 weeks or so, the formation of adipocere follows the putrefaction stage where his body fuilds would drain from his body....IMO, Conner being in a plastic bag may retard the formation of adipocere...

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

[PsychNurse;~)]

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..

maceration affected conner's body externally. conner's body was decomposed, with the organs liquified, internally. maceration technically IS a form of decomposition which occurs along with autolysis when the body is in a sterile environment.

cyn

[PsychNurse;~)]

deputy di--i'm so sorry about your beloved companion.

:rose:

i'm sure he's running around happy and free and youthful again.

cyn

[PsychNurse;~)]

exactly...... thank you..

AK in the prelim

Q. Okay. And what -- did he say anything else at that time? I mean -- let me just ask you this: Did he tell you what he had been doing all day?

A. He had said that he was golfing all day, and that he had tried to call her all day, so --

Q

i'm pretty hopeful we can all agree he sure as heck did not try to call her all day!

cyn

[cookiewench]

I didn't notice that question..

Anyhow, IMO, since there was an opening at the top of the uterus, Conner would have been exposed to bay water...yet, there was no adipocere on Conner..adipocere forms in about 3 weeks in bodies submerged in water...
if anything, that indicates to me that he was not in the uterus in the bay..on the other hand, if he was in a plastic bag, he would have been dry for the first 2 weeks or so, the formation of adipocere follows the putrefaction stage where his body fuilds would drain from his body....IMO, Conner being in a plastic bag may retard the formation of adipocere...

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

No. The uterus was abraided and it most likely tore through right at the time of the storm, when he was expelled and swept to shore.

The ME's testimony shows this.

[Miss Bootsie]

I didn't notice that question..

Anyhow, IMO, since there was an opening at the top of the uterus, Conner would have been exposed to bay water...yet, there was no adipocere on Conner..adipocere forms in about 3 weeks in bodies submerged in water...
if anything, that indicates to me that he was not in the uterus in the bay..on the other hand, if he was in a plastic bag, he would have been dry for the first 2 weeks or so, the formation of adipocere follows the putrefaction stage where his body fuilds would drain from his body....IMO, Conner being in a plastic bag may retard the formation of adipocere...

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

Why is it your opinion, a plastic bag would retard the formation of adiopocere?

How would you know how long the uterus was open to the environment?

Why is it your opinion Conner would have remained dry for two weeks in a plastic bag submerged in water?






HARRIS: Now, you had mentioned earlier a little bit about the decomposition process. I want to go through that. In this particular case, it's, from the lay person's point of view, it's fairly obvious that there has been some type of decomposition of this body.

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. That's autolysis.
The next step is decomposition.
That typically involves microorganisms, like bacteria.

PETERSON:in a moist, cool environment, there are a couple other changes. And I have already mentioned the main one. That's adipocere formation. So that affects the fat beneath the skin. So these are the processes that involve the body's own enzyme systems and also microorganisms

PETERSON:Not quite like Laci's change, but a different set of changes that ran more along the lines of a process called maceration.

PETERSON: Conner's body had undergone a similar type process with respect to autolysis, maceration, body soaking in fluid, and so forth.

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.

PETERSON:I think the difference is they were both in fluid, they were both in fluid environments, but Conner was much more protected than Laci.

PETERSON: 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.

[PsychNurse;~)]

I didn't notice that question..

Anyhow, IMO, since there was an opening at the top of the uterus, Conner would have been exposed to bay water...yet, there was no adipocere on Conner..adipocere forms in about 3 weeks in bodies submerged in water...
if anything, that indicates to me that he was not in the uterus in the bay..on the other hand, if he was in a plastic bag, he would have been dry for the first 2 weeks or so, the formation of adipocere follows the putrefaction stage where his body fuilds would drain from his body....IMO, Conner being in a plastic bag may retard the formation of adipocere...

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

you are assuming that the abraded uterus was open while laci was still submerged in the bay--and the abrasion didn't fully open right about the time of the storm that 'rocked' laci's body (for lack of a better term) and allowed it to rise to the surface.

had conner been placed into a plastic bag (and i simply don't understand why you don't get this) or any other type of container, air tight or not, his external body would not have undergone the maceration and autolysis that was seen. the process seen in conner's body was because he was in a STERILE FLUID ENVIRONMENT (not meant as yelling).

in a non-sterile environment, fluid or not, the bacteria would have IMMEDIATELY begun a more 'routine' type of external decomposition on conner's exterior.

cyn

[Miss Bootsie]

you are assuming that the abraded uterus was open while laci was still submerged in the bay--and the abrasion didn't fully open right about the time of the storm that 'rocked' laci's body (for lack of a better term) and allowed it to rise to the surface.

had conner been placed into a plastic bag (and i simply don't understand why you don't get this) or any other type of container, air tight or not, his external body would not have undergone the maceration and autolysis that was seen. the process seen in conner's body was because he was in a STERILE FLUID ENVIRONMENT (not meant as yelling).

in a non-sterile environment, fluid or not, the bacteria would have IMMEDIATELY begun a more 'routine' type of external decomposition on conner's exterior.

cyn

It absolutely amazes me that AW gives Dr. Peterson credit when she wants to make a point to support her theory, but refuses to accept his opinion as credible.

We have an expert opinion that Conner was in utero during those four months.
The condition of the bodies support his opinion.

On the other hand, the lay person has absolutely nothing to support her opinion.

[cookiewench]

The truth is that Scott murdered his pregnant wife and dumped her in the bay. That is the one and only explanation for the condition of both bodies when they were found.

And all of the theories about bodies soaking in bathtubs and then being transported to the bay months later and babies in plastic bags and abrasions that aren't abrasions but cut - is just the result of some people straining their brains to come up with wild, impossible theories - theories that will never, ever add up - because they have nothing at all to do with this crime.

[attorneywan2be]

Why is it your opinion, a plastic bag would retard the formation of adiopocere?

How would you know how long the uterus was open to the environment?

Why is it your opinion Conner would have remained dry for two weeks in a plastic bag submerged in water?

1-In order for adipocere to form the body needs to be in a moist environment....IMO, it would be dry inside the plastic bag the first couple of weeks until his body fluids starts to drain from his body.. a sealed plastic bag would not allow water to seep in even if it is submerged in water..

2-According to the prosecution's theory..Laci was in the bay for about 4 months..I don't believe that the opening occurred overnight...IMO, the opening would have occurred gradually over several weeks..allowing water to enter in the uterus, even if the hole started as small as a pin hole.. water will seep thru it...according to the link I posted in my previous post, it takes 3 weeks for adipocere to form if the body is submerged in water..so I'm not buying the theory that Conner was in her uterus in the bay..it doesn't make sense to me..

[Lavindar]

lol,You left out that Laci was forced to continuously urinate in her pants. The urine formed the mineral deposits.

I agree and have the same issue with the theory.
The theory is just not reasonable.:confused:

Another issue I have is being stuck on a certain statement by an expert witness and refusing to accept additional testimony that provides a detailed explanation.

I agree also and she is using evidence that the jury did not see to prove her point rather than evidence that the jury DID hear not to mention atty statements WHICH are NOT testimony, be they prosecution or defense. That instruction was given to the jury

[Lavindar]

1-In order for adipocere to form the body needs to be in a moist environment....IMO, it would be dry inside the plastic bag the first couple of weeks until his body fluids starts to drain from his body.. a sealed plastic bag would not allow water to seep in even if it is submerged in water..

2-According to the prosecution's theory..Laci was in the bay for about 4 months..I don't believe that the opening occurred overnight...IMO, the opening would have occurred gradually over several weeks..allowing water to enter in the uterus, even if the hole started as small as a pin hole.. water will seep thru it...according to the link I posted in my previous post, it takes 3 weeks for adipocere to form if the body is submerged in water..so I'm not buying the theory that Conner was in her uterus in the bay..it doesn't make sense to me..

Yet you IGNORE the testimony of the ME who says that Connre was kept in a moist sterile, protected environment until he was released shortly before being found. Being dry in a plastic bag is NOT in a moist, protected environment, and had he been in a DRY bag, he would not have been MASCERATED. Your bag and your theory go against evidence presented at trial.

[PsychNurse;~)]

1-In order for adipocere to form the body needs to be in a moist environment....IMO, it would be dry inside the plastic bag the first couple of weeks until his body fluids starts to drain from his body.. a sealed plastic bag would not allow water to seep in even if it is submerged in water..

2-According to the prosecution's theory..Laci was in the bay for about 4 months..I don't believe that the opening occurred overnight...IMO, the opening would have occurred gradually over several weeks..allowing water to enter in the uterus, even if the hole started as small as a pin hole.. water will seep thru it...according to the link I posted in my previous post, it takes 3 weeks for adipocere to form if the body is submerged in water..so I'm not buying the theory that Conner was in her uterus in the bay..it doesn't make sense to me..

but it does make sense to you that conner's body, removed from a sterile environment and placed into a plastic bag decomposed internally and magically underwent autolysis and maceration instead of full external decomp.

uh huh.

cyn

[attorneywan2be]

It absolutely amazes me that AW gives Dr. Peterson credit when she wants to make a point to support her theory, but refuses to accept his opinion as credible.

Snip


Well, are you saying that people have to either agree all the time or disagree all the time?? of course, I can agree with him on some things while disagreeing with him on other things..

Dr Wecht doesn't agree with the ME on everything..for example, he disagrees that the twine was a debris that wrapped around Conner's neck..his theory about Conner is that he might have been placed in a bag..!

[PsychNurse;~)]

Yet you IGNORE the testimony of the ME who says that Connre was kept in a moist sterile, protected environment until he was released shortly before being found. Being dry in a plastic bag is NOT in a moist, protected environment, and had he been in a DRY bag, he would not have been MASCERATED. Your bag and your theory go against evidence presented at trial.

and had conner been in a dry bag that ultimately became moist due to his body leaking fluids as aw2b theorizes, then conner's body would have undergone putrification from the outside--not autolysis and maceration.

cyn

[attorneywan2be]

WECHT: No, I can't, for the same reason. There was meconium (search), so the baby probably died within 48 hours, did not have to die right away. Let me say that there is no way to defensively state that that baby could not have been removed from the uterus. And the idea that, as one of your panelists who's not with you this evening has wildly explained as bizarre and so on — Jeffrey Dahmer was bizarre and Robert Berdella (search) was bizarre. And there's a lot of things that are bizarre, and especially in the state of California. So to remove a baby and to keep it alive for a short while, the baby dies, for whatever reason.

And you know that twine around the neck and over the shoulder, on the arm? How about if there is some kind of a bag that is over the baby that is held in place with that tape, and the bag dissolves and breaks apart in the water and the tape remains? There are a lot of explanations. The baby's head was 28 centimeters circumference. I measured 20 centimeters around the neck. You talk about something coming over the head, the body's floating in the water? You couldn't do that in a million years.

There's lot of things that are inexplicable in this case, and the idea that, Oh, it's absolutely definite — you can talk all you want about Amber Frey and you can talk all you want about what a cad he is and his dyed hair and his money in the wallet, the fundamental things apply, as they say in that song, Greta. And where was the death? When was the death? What was the mechanism of the death? Where's all the biological forensic evidence in this case? Where is it? Where is it?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136952,00.html

[adnoid]

WECHT:

What day was his direct and what day was his cross again? I can't seem to find it in the TS.

[Lavindar]

Yes - he let the dog out with the intention of him being found and returned. This would be his "evidence" of his Laci-walking-the-dog alibi.

This is all an indication of his guilt and his sociopathy. He was acting in the way that he THOUGHT a concerned man would act, but he had no clue.

But whether the dog was there with his leash on or not, Scott should have been very, very concerned - and for all the other reasons you've listed above.

But he also had to wash his clothes and take a shower to get any evidence (blood, cement, hair, etc.) off of his person.

So.....he played it cool and acted as if it would have been perfectly normal for Laci to be at her parent's house without him, even though the scene would have told him that she'd been gone all day and that something was very, very wrong.And without her car, her purse, her keys, and leaving the house unlocked with a small fortune of jewelry sitting in plane view - oh yeah, and she forgot to leave a light on.

[Lavindar]

WECHT: No, I can't, for the same reason. There was meconium (search), so the baby probably died within 48 hours, did not have to die right away. Let me say that there is no way to defensively state that that baby could not have been removed from the uterus. And the idea that, as one of your panelists who's not with you this evening has wildly explained as bizarre and so on — Jeffrey Dahmer was bizarre and Robert Berdella (search) was bizarre. And there's a lot of things that are bizarre, and especially in the state of California. So to remove a baby and to keep it alive for a short while, the baby dies, for whatever reason.

And you know that twine around the neck and over the shoulder, on the arm? How about if there is some kind of a bag that is over the baby that is held in place with that tape, and the bag dissolves and breaks apart in the water and the tape remains? There are a lot of explanations. The baby's head was 28 centimeters circumference. I measured 20 centimeters around the neck. You talk about something coming over the head, the body's floating in the water? You couldn't do that in a million years.

There's lot of things that are inexplicable in this case, and the idea that, Oh, it's absolutely definite — you can talk all you want about Amber Frey and you can talk all you want about what a cad he is and his dyed hair and his money in the wallet, the fundamental things apply, as they say in that song, Greta. And where was the death? When was the death? What was the mechanism of the death? Where's all the biological forensic evidence in this case? Where is it? Where is it?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136952,00.html


The biological evidence was washed off in the water, except for that mysterious hair that was meshed in the pliers in the boat. Manner of death was determined to be homicide. You don't have to prove where, how, or why - just that a death occurred. Better read up on the law.

[Lavindar]

WECHT: No, I can't, for the same reason. There was meconium (search), so the baby probably died within 48 hours, did not have to die right away. Let me say that there is no way to defensively state that that baby could not have been removed from the uterus. And the idea that, as one of your panelists who's not with you this evening has wildly explained as bizarre and so on — Jeffrey Dahmer was bizarre and Robert Berdella (search) was bizarre. And there's a lot of things that are bizarre, and especially in the state of California. So to remove a baby and to keep it alive for a short while, the baby dies, for whatever reason.

And you know that twine around the neck and over the shoulder, on the arm? How about if there is some kind of a bag that is over the baby that is held in place with that tape, and the bag dissolves and breaks apart in the water and the tape remains? There are a lot of explanations. The baby's head was 28 centimeters circumference. I measured 20 centimeters around the neck. You talk about something coming over the head, the body's floating in the water? You couldn't do that in a million years.

There's lot of things that are inexplicable in this case, and the idea that, Oh, it's absolutely definite — you can talk all you want about Amber Frey and you can talk all you want about what a cad he is and his dyed hair and his money in the wallet, the fundamental things apply, as they say in that song, Greta. And where was the death? When was the death? What was the mechanism of the death? Where's all the biological forensic evidence in this case? Where is it? Where is it?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136952,00.html


Why must you insist upon speculation and ignoring the facts presented at trial. None of these will get him new trial uness Jackie confesses to having done it.

There was forensic evidence at the house. However, it is meaningless since Laci lived there. At some point in her life there, she bled from a cut. You would expect to find her hair there. What you did NOT find in that house was any Burglary or assault by a stranger. That is what police are looking for - forensic evidence of people living there should be all around. If it is not, then there is a clean up. That's from Dr. Lee - remember him? I have heard him say that multiple times on his TV show. The absense of evidence is evidence of a clean up

There was tape found on the shoreline near conner that was tested and was the same as was on Conner. The Bay is a dumping ground.

And I believe that tape was also UNDER his arm, not on it.

[attorneywan2be]

What day was his direct and what day was his cross again? I can't seem to find it in the TS.


LOL..none of us testified yet we give our opinions..at least he is a leading expert in his field and he examined the bodies..

[attorneywan2be]

The biological evidence was washed off in the water, except for that mysterious hair that was meshed in the pliers in the boat. Manner of death was determined to be homicide. You don't have to prove where, how, or why - just that a death occurred. Better read up on the law.


Dr. Wecht is also a lawyer..

[Lavindar]

What day was his direct and what day was his cross again? I can't seem to find it in the TS. I can't find it either, adnoid however, there was a Dr. Peterson who testified who is a ME like Wecht.


I believe Wecht is considered the MEDIA, you know the ones who "convicted Scott." Funny how Wecht isn't convicting him once he is on the payroll - yet prior to being hired, he was with the baby in the uterus theory.

[Lavindar]

LOL..none of us testified yet we give our opinions..at least he is a leading expert in his field and he examined the bodies..
Some of us are posting testimony that was heard by the jury. Wecht is also under indictment, which makes him iffy in my book. That with his statements before he was hired and his statements after he hired are in direct opposition.

Just like Geragos's "damned strong circumstantial case" became "stone cold innocent." Funny what money will do

[Lavindar]

Dr. Wecht is also a lawyer..
And, again, when did he testify? What that has to do with this case makes no sense to me whatsoever - he's also very old and has moments when he's not terribly lucid. AND he broke the gag order - a lawyer should know better than that.

[attorneywan2be]

Some of us are posting testimony that was heard by the jury. Wecht is also under indictment, which makes him iffy in my book. That with his statements before he was hired and his statements after he hired are in direct opposition.

Just like Geragos's "damned strong circumstantial case" became "stone cold innocent." Funny what money will do

How about the ME changing his testimony at the trial...for example, he testified at the prelim that there was no barnacles on Laci's body..yet at the trial he testified to the exact opposite..!

Don't forget that the ME was also paid by the state..!

[PsychNurse;~)]

WECHT: No, I can't, for the same reason. There was meconium (search), so the baby probably died within 48 hours, did not have to die right away. Let me say that there is no way to defensively state that that baby could not have been removed from the uterus. And the idea that, as one of your panelists who's not with you this evening has wildly explained as bizarre and so on — Jeffrey Dahmer was bizarre and Robert Berdella (search) was bizarre. And there's a lot of things that are bizarre, and especially in the state of California. So to remove a baby and to keep it alive for a short while, the baby dies, for whatever reason.

And you know that twine around the neck and over the shoulder, on the arm? How about if there is some kind of a bag that is over the baby that is held in place with that tape, and the bag dissolves and breaks apart in the water and the tape remains? There are a lot of explanations. The baby's head was 28 centimeters circumference. I measured 20 centimeters around the neck. You talk about something coming over the head, the body's floating in the water? You couldn't do that in a million years.

There's lot of things that are inexplicable in this case, and the idea that, Oh, it's absolutely definite — you can talk all you want about Amber Frey and you can talk all you want about what a cad he is and his dyed hair and his money in the wallet, the fundamental things apply, as they say in that song, Greta. And where was the death? When was the death? What was the mechanism of the death? Where's all the biological forensic evidence in this case? Where is it? Where is it?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136952,00.html

it is simply not reasonable to believe someone performed a c-section on laci by slicing into her above the belly button at the level of her rib cage. it is not reasonable to believe that someone then cut open the fundus (top) of her uterus basically just wide enough for conner's body to exit. it is not reasonable to believe that someone then put their hands and arms into laci at her rib cage to her uterus and then put their hands/wrists down into her uterus without tearing it wide open while grasping conner and pulling his body out of her uterus and then removing him at a 90 degree angle.

what would have been reasonable (if this had happened) would be that laci's abdomen was opened at the widest/most easily accessible point.

why does everyone leave out that the loop of twine around conner was one AND a half loops with a knot in it? most of us saw the drawing on ctv that was done by a courtroom artist that showed it was a LARGE loop that had wrapped around conner's neck AND shoulder, with the knot being at his left shoulder blade.

dr. wecht never addressed how conner's decomp process could have so perfectly mimiced autolysis and maceration in a STERILE fluid environment when being in a plastic bag is not a sterile environment.

the process of autolysis and maceration and sterility is a scientific factual process that cannot be overlooked by anyone really looking for the truth, imo. you want to believe isp innocent, great! believe someone else tossed a pregnant laci into the bay and left her there for 3 plus months. but the science of conner's decomp doesn't work with your theories.

wecht loses way too much credibility when he's demanding to know where, when, and how a murder occurred since none of those are required in order to prove murder. especially in a soft kill, what type of evidence would you expect to find in a home shared by the suspect and victim for years?

cyn

[adnoid]

Dr. Wecht is also a lawyer..

I already had zero respect for him, this is just piling on.

[Lavindar]

She may have been on Geragos's lists of witnessnes, but based on this from PWC site, she would NOT have testified.
15 Oct 2003 Dempewolf won't testify at Prelim

Prosecutors announced they will not introduce from Kristen Dempewolf, who was hypnotized by investigators, at the preliminary hearing, but still intend to call her at the trial. They also claim that the defense objections to Dempewolf must also apply to Diane Jackson, the witness who saw the van parked across the street from the Petersons. Jackson, too, was hypnotized.

I will dig up the ruling if I can find it.

[PsychNurse;~)]

Dr. Wecht is also a lawyer..

you'd think a lawyer of all people would know you don't have to prove then when, where, and how of a murder.

you'd also think a lawyer of all people would know that soft kills likely won't leave much/any evidence if it occurred in the home shared by the suspect and victim.

his medical examiner statements were just as lacking in this case, imo.

cyn

[Lavindar]

How about the ME changing his testimony at the trial...for example, he testified at the prelim that there was no barnacles on Laci's body..yet at the trial he testified to the exact opposite..!

Don't forget that the ME was also paid by the state..!


again, your opinion. PRovide the two conflicting testimonies please

[Lavindar]

and had conner been in a dry bag that ultimately became moist due to his body leaking fluids as aw2b theorizes, then conner's body would have undergone putrification from the outside--not autolysis and maceration.

cyn


Not to mention that front that point on, it would NOT have been a serile environment.
Did she mention what kind of bag he was in yet? Hefty? Ziploc (they leak). One of those new bags you vacuum the air out of (can't remember the names of them)

[PsychNurse;~)]

Some of us are posting testimony that was heard by the jury. Wecht is also under indictment, which makes him iffy in my book. That with his statements before he was hired and his statements after he hired are in direct opposition.

Just like Geragos's "damned strong circumstantial case" became "stone cold innocent." Funny what money will do

i don't find wecht being indicted as "iffy" since imo it appears to be more of a political issue in his case. iirc he's been indicted before decades ago for similar issues that amounted to nothing.

i do not buy into his comments on this case after being hired by the defense. i agree with you about that!

cyn

[adnoid]

you'd think a lawyer of all people would know you don't have to prove then when, where, and how of a murder.

Well, a good one would. Wecht, however, apparently does not.

[PsychNurse;~)]

Not to mention that front that point on, it would NOT have been a serile environment.
Did she mention what kind of bag he was in yet? Hefty? Ziploc (they leak). One of those new bags you vacuum the air out of (can't remember the names of them)

hi lavindar--i've mentioned in several posts that no plastic bag or other container would provide any type of sterile environment.

cyn

[Lavindar]

i don't find wecht being indicted as "iffy" since imo it appears to be more of a political issue in his case. iirc he's been indicted before decades ago for similar issues that amounted to nothing.

i do not buy into his comments on this case after being hired by the defense. i agree with you about that!

cyn His comments in the Anna Nicole Smith case were also very suspect - he kept changing his tune in that case too. I avoid watching him like the plague now because imo he's become a media ho.

[Lavindar]

hi lavindar--i've mentioned in several posts that no plastic bag or other container would provide any type of sterile environment.

cyn
I didn't think so either. And had conner been dry in the bag, he would have decomposed differently than he did being in the sterile environment of the womb There's ample medical information on maceration and stillborns on the internet

[adnoid]

..Did she mention what kind of bag he was in yet? Hefty? Ziploc (they leak). One of those new bags you vacuum the air out of (can't remember the names of them)

Not to mention the SIZE it would have had to be - 10 gallon? Some sort of bizzare cross between a Ziplock and a trash compactor bag only available ate K(idnapers)Mart?

[adnoid]

hi lavindar--i've mentioned in several posts that no plastic bag or other container would provide any type of sterile environment.

cyn

Right - what is the standard time/temperature to sterilize equipment? If you let me know, I can tell you if any given plastic material will withstand it. I doubt the material Ziplocks are made out of can be sterilized in the field.

[Miss Bootsie]

WECHT: No, I can't, for the same reason. There was meconium (search), so the baby probably died within 48 hours, did not have to die right away. Let me say that there is no way to defensively state that that baby could not have been removed from the uterus. And the idea that, as one of your panelists who's not with you this evening has wildly explained as bizarre and so on — Jeffrey Dahmer was bizarre and Robert Berdella (search) was bizarre. And there's a lot of things that are bizarre, and especially in the state of California. So to remove a baby and to keep it alive for a short while, the baby dies, for whatever reason.

And you know that twine around the neck and over the shoulder, on the arm? How about if there is some kind of a bag that is over the baby that is held in place with that tape, and the bag dissolves and breaks apart in the water and the tape remains? There are a lot of explanations. The baby's head was 28 centimeters circumference. I measured 20 centimeters around the neck. You talk about something coming over the head, the body's floating in the water? You couldn't do that in a million years.

There's lot of things that are inexplicable in this case, and the idea that, Oh, it's absolutely definite — you can talk all you want about Amber Frey and you can talk all you want about what a cad he is and his dyed hair and his money in the wallet, the fundamental things apply, as they say in that song, Greta. And where was the death? When was the death? What was the mechanism of the death? Where's all the biological forensic evidence in this case? Where is it? Where is it?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136952,00.html

As you told another poster - I can't believe you give more credit to a News story than you do the actual trial testimony.

[Lavindar]

As you told another poster - I can't believe you give more credit to a News story than you do the actual trial testimony.
This makes me wonder if it's ok to reprort media stories as truth now.

[attorneywan2be]

again, your opinion. PRovide the two conflicting testimonies please

It is not my opinion...it is a fact..

His testimony at the prelim:

8 Q. Did you notice any barnacles?
9 A. There were no barnacles on the body. There was
10 some barnacle on the clothing, but not on her.

His testimony at the trial:

David Harris: Now, you are talking about this body, Miss Peterson being in a marine environment. So when you are looking at this initial general observation, was there something on the body that was giving you a strong indication she had been in a marine environment?
Brian Peterson: Well, I think the adipocere was helpful. There were barnacles on bone that was also helpful. To me, the mineralization, the stony deposits on clothing, was also an indicator.
David Harris: Now, to go back to that. One of the things that you said, barnacles on bones. Could you describe that for us?
Brian Peterson: Well, I did not see barnacles on soft tissue. But to my eye, one, I believe it was the femur, there were barnacles. I couldn't get any more specific than that. I don't really know a whole lot about barnacles. I know one when I see them, I guess.

[Miss Bootsie]

LOL..none of us testified yet we give our opinions..at least he is a leading expert in his field and he examined the bodies..

My opinion is based on expert testimony from the forensic ME that testified at trial.
What expert opinion do you base your theory on?

You do bring up a good point here.
Yes, Dr. Wecht did examine the bodies.
It's quite obvious he had nothing to add to Dr. Peterson's findings or he would have testified.

[attorneywan2be]

As you told another poster - I can't believe you give more credit to a News story than you do the actual trial testimony.

Surely you know the difference between a News story and a live TV interview..Dr. Wecht was on Greta..he stated his opinion..I posted the TS of what he said..!

[Lavindar]

Surely you know the difference between a News story and a live TV interview..Dr. Wecht was on Greta..he stated his opinion..I posted the TS of what he said..!

Sorry, was that the night he was so incoherenet that greta had to cut him off - or was that one of the times he violated the GAG ORDER

[Lavindar]

Surely you know the difference between a News story and a live TV interview..Dr. Wecht was on Greta..he stated his opinion..I posted the TS of what he said..! It's still MEDIA
and he is NOT under oath to tell the truth

[Miss Bootsie]

It is not my opinion...it is a fact..

His testimony at the prelim:

8 Q. Did you notice any barnacles?
9 A. There were no barnacles on the body. There was
10 some barnacle on the clothing, but not on her.

His testimony at the trial:

David Harris: Now, you are talking about this body, Miss Peterson being in a marine environment. So when you are looking at this initial general observation, was there something on the body that was giving you a strong indication she had been in a marine environment?
Brian Peterson: Well, I think the adipocere was helpful. There were barnacles on bone that was also helpful. To me, the mineralization, the stony deposits on clothing, was also an indicator.
David Harris: Now, to go back to that. One of the things that you said, barnacles on bones. Could you describe that for us?
Brian Peterson: Well, I did not see barnacles on soft tissue. But to my eye, one, I believe it was the femur, there were barnacles. I couldn't get any more specific than that. I don't really know a whole lot about barnacles. I know one when I see them, I guess.

Why is it relevant whether Dr. P. saw the barnacle on the shredded pants or on the femur?

[Lavindar]

It is not my opinion...it is a fact..

His testimony at the prelim:

8 Q. Did you notice any barnacles?
9 A. There were no barnacles on the body. There was
10 some barnacle on the clothing, but not on her.

His testimony at the trial:

David Harris: Now, you are talking about this body, Miss Peterson being in a marine environment. So when you are looking at this initial general observation, was there something on the body that was giving you a strong indication she had been in a marine environment?
Brian Peterson: Well, I think the adipocere was helpful. There were barnacles on bone that was also helpful. To me, the mineralization, the stony deposits on clothing, was also an indicator.
David Harris: Now, to go back to that. One of the things that you said, barnacles on bones. Could you describe that for us?
Brian Peterson: Well, I did not see barnacles on soft tissue. But to my eye, one, I believe it was the femur, there were barnacles. I couldn't get any more specific than that. I don't really know a whole lot about barnacles. I know one when I see them, I guess.

He said there were barnacles. He didn't say there were NO barnacles.

[I'mSun]

My opinion is based on expert testimony from the forensic ME that testified at trial.
What expert opinion do you base your theory on?

You do bring up a good point here.
Yes, Dr. Wecht did examine the bodies.
It's quite obvious he had nothing to add to Dr. Peterson's findings or he would have testified.Dr's. Lee and Wecht both examined the bodies of Laci and Connor. They thought they would be called to testify, but in the end, they weren't. I agree with you that they probably couldn't add anything to what Dr. Peterson said. Geragos wasted a lot of money, it seems, and he still didn't get what he hoped for.

[Miss Bootsie]

Surely you know the difference between a News story and a live TV interview..Dr. Wecht was on Greta..he stated his opinion..I posted the TS of what he said..!

Surely you know the difference in the credibility of a forensic ME that testified at trial and a forensic ME who was hired by the defense to examine the bodies.....who was unable to add anything to help the defense....but went on to give his opinion in an interview.
Wecht didn't testify because he knew those opinions he gave in the interview wouldn't fly in the court room.
The prosecution would have made him look like a fool.

[Miss Bootsie]

He said there were barnacles. He didn't say there were NO barnacles.

I think the issue with Dr. P's testimony is rather silly and irrelevant.
The case would have gone to trial regardless of whether Dr. P. saw the barnacles on the shredded pants or the femur.
The only relevancy is that during his examination, Dr. P. found barnacles on Laci Peterson.

[I'mSun]

I think the issue with Dr. P's testimony is rather silly and irrelevant.
The case would have gone to trial regardless of whether Dr. P. saw the barnacles on the shredded pants or the femur.
The only relevancy is that during his examination, Dr. P. found barnacles on Laci Peterson.
So, how do you get barnacles while propped up in a bath tub for months?? :biggrin:

[One2Snoop]

So, how do you get barnacles while propped up in a bath tub for months?? :biggrin:

LOL maybe they carted in seawater for appearance sake? :shrug:

On a serious note, I'd hope that any reasonable thinking human being would realize how silly it would be to think someone would go to this sort of trouble all for the sake of framing Scott Peterson. :read:

On second thought, I realize there are people who think that - but its unreasonable and way out there, IMO.

[I'mSun]

LOL maybe they carted in seawater for appearance sake? :shrug:

On a serious note, I'd hope that any reasonable thinking human being would realize how silly it would be to think someone would go to this sort of trouble all for the sake of framing Scott Peterson. :read:

I've always wondered what possible reason someone would have for wanting to frame ISP. Scott wasn't wealthy or famous. He was a fertilizer salesman, a liar and a cheater. What is there to be gained?

[Lily Rose]

I've always wondered what possible reason someone would have for wanting to frame ISP. Scott wasn't wealthy or famous. He was a fertilizer salesman, a liar and a cheater. What is there to be gained?

Scott getting the DP instead of themselves maybe?

[TopGunner]

Scott getting the DP instead of themselves maybe?



But Think About It: In the midsts of murder, they had the composure to say "wait! Let's HOLD the body until the media announces where her husband is TODAY. And then we'll HOLD HER for months and months and then PLANT her (and her baby a mile away to make it REALLY look authentic), wherever they announce he went today, 'cause we know he must have gone somewhere.

Really, Think About It. :seeya:

[rachelslaw]

But Think About It: In the midsts of murder, they had the composure to say "wait! Let's HOLD the body until the media announces where her husband is TODAY. And then we'll HOLD HER for months and months and then PLANT her (and her baby a mile away to make it REALLY look authentic), wherever they announce he went today, 'cause we know he must have gone somewhere.

Really, Think About It. :seeya:

Excellent Point. The logistics of accomplishing such a feat would be truly amazing. LE and others were looking for Laci. To be able to hide the body for any length of time undetected would be one thing, but to be able to move the body from a secret hiding place to the Bay simply to frame Scott just doesn't pass the "logic" test.

IMO

:seeya:

[enlightenme]

But Think About It: In the midsts of murder, they had the composure to say "wait! Let's HOLD the body until the media announces where her husband is TODAY. And then we'll HOLD HER for months and months and then PLANT her (and her baby a mile away to make it REALLY look authentic), wherever they announce he went today, 'cause we know he must have gone somewhere.

Really, Think About It. :seeya:

Not only that, they waited until a 2 day storm was over, cuz that would really make it look like the bodies "washed ashore" like a whole bunch of other debris did.

The Medina burglars, Todd & Pearce, were in jail at this time. So if they were the culprits, they had friends move the bodies for them. Wow! I've heard the phrase "friends will help you move, real friends will help you move bodies", but I thought is was just a sick joke.

[Hey Paula]

Dr. Wecht is also a lawyer..

Hi AW2B!

And that poses a conflict of interest when discussing a case, depending upon what hat he chooses to wear at the time.

IMO

[adnoid]

Well, are you saying that people have to either agree all the time or disagree all the time?? of course, I can agree with him on some things while disagreeing with him on other things...

If so, is your position that the witness in question:

a) is a credible witness;

b) is NOT a creible witness;

c) is a credible witness when their testimony supports your conclusion and is NOT a credible witness when their testimony does not?

[adnoid]

It's still MEDIA
and he is NOT under oath to tell the truth

Nor has be been actually qualified as a witness by the Court.

Nor will his statements be subject to cross exam.

I.e. it's worthless except for entertainment value. Actually, with Wecht, it's not even useful for that.

[adnoid]

Scott getting the DP instead of themselves maybe?

But whoever did it in your scenario wasn't facing ANY punishment until they kidnapped & killed her - so why set down that road? Why would burglars, for instance, trade a jail term for burglary for a murder charge? It defies reason.

[Lavindar]

I've always wondered what possible reason someone would have for wanting to frame ISP. Scott wasn't wealthy or famous. He was a fertilizer salesman, a liar and a cheater. What is there to be gained?

A friend bought the frame-up theory for a long long time. Problem was that tehy couldn't come up with a reason for the frame. Scott made the frame up even more impossible by what he did - traveling so far away, using an additional vehicle (a boat inappropriate for the location). That's what makes a framup so unblievable and so unreasonable.

I am sure he was investigate for possible drug connections. Scott is a low-life nad a fornicator and a heavy drinker imo, but there is nothing to indicate any involvement in drugs or drug trafficking. He would have wayyyy more money than he did imo.

Scott was just your average guy with an impending child on the way that he didn't really want imo as evidenced by things he said to peoplem, Amber on the phone tap, Rose in testimony.

There's just no reason to think ANYONE would have a reason to frame him...particularly anyone with the means to dump the body in the bay

[Lavindar]

Not only that, they waited until a 2 day storm was over, cuz that would really make it look like the bodies "washed ashore" like a whole bunch of other debris did.

The Medina burglars, Todd & Pearce, were in jail at this time. So if they were the culprits, they had friends move the bodies for them. Wow! I've heard the phrase "friends will help you move, real friends will help you move bodies", but I thought is was just a sick joke.


Todd and Pearce lived in the airport district. Not too many people own boats in that area of town, let alone vehicles with tow packages. Pearce's mom's car wouldn't qualify to tow a boat.

[Lavindar]

Scott getting the DP instead of themselves maybe? That is worth either following Scott that morning - oh wait, he said he left and she was alive. How would they know where to find him to follow him to the Bay. It was only reported as SAN FRANSICO BAY (an area encompasing about 500sq miles of water) until 11 PM on the 27th. They never said what marina he went to or even that he had a boat at this point.

Yet someone held the bodies, until they found the location where Scott had gone, somehow found a boat on a trailer and a vehicle with towing capacity and went to the Bay and dumped the body....forgetting that the dog hit on Laci's scent the morning of Dec 28th - that closes the window of opportunity considerably, doesn't it?

[Miss Bootsie]

1-In order for adipocere to form the body needs to be in a moist environment....IMO, it would be dry inside the plastic bag the first couple of weeks until his body fluids starts to drain from his body.. a sealed plastic bag would not allow water to seep in even if it is submerged in water..

2-According to the prosecution's theory..Laci was in the bay for about 4 months..I don't believe that the opening occurred overnight...IMO, the opening would have occurred gradually over several weeks..allowing water to enter in the uterus, even if the hole started as small as a pin hole.. water will seep thru it...according to the link I posted in my previous post, it takes 3 weeks for adipocere to form if the body is submerged in water..so I'm not buying the theory that Conner was in her uterus in the bay..it doesn't make sense to me..

So many imo's. Can you provide trial testimony or scientific info. to support the above opinions?

Being that your theory about the body being stored in a plastic bag doesn't provide for a sterile environment, your theory doesn't fit. That pesky word sterile that is part of the trial record keeps popping up. Doesn't it?

Your opinion about there being a hole in the Uterus doesn't fit , because Conner's body was broken down by a maceration/autolysis process. Bacteria didn't play a part in the process.

Your theory about Laci places her body in a bathtub partially submerged.

Why wasn't there evidence of insect activity?

I wonder how the burglars were aware early on they should store Conner's body in a plastic bag in an effort to mimic the uterus?

Why would they keep Laci's body upright, partially submerged in a bathtub? Any ideas?

[Lavindar]

So many imo's. Can you provide trial testimony or scientific info. to support the above opinions?

Being that your theory about the body being stored in a plastic bag doesn't provide for a sterile environment, your theory doesn't fit. That pesky word sterile that is part of the trial record keeps popping up. Doesn't it?

Your opinion about there being a hole in the Uterus doesn't fit , because Conner's body was broken down by a maceration/autolysis process. Bacteria didn't play a part in the process.

Your theory about Laci places her body in a bathtub partially submerged.

Why wasn't there evidence of insect activity?

I wonder how the burglars were aware early on they should store Conner's body in a plastic bag in an effort to mimic the uterus?

Why would they keep Laci's body upright, partially submerged in a bathtub? Any ideas? I have to wonder how they knew to mimic the temperature of the Bay also. So many pesky details to overcome if you want to support the "framing" theory.

[frydaddy]

If so, is your position that the witness in question:

a) is a credible witness;

b) is NOT a creible witness;

c) is a credible witness when their testimony supports your conclusion and is NOT a credible witness when their testimony does not?

Oh say can you...

Orange juice is full of vitamin...

Starkist's biggest competitor is Chicken of the...

Pedro says the opposite of no is...

[Otter]

DD, I'm so sorry about Pierre. :rose: (((HUG)))

[deputydi]

Well, are you saying that people have to either agree all the time or disagree all the time?? of course, I can agree with him on some things while disagreeing with him on other things..

Dr Wecht doesn't agree with the ME on everything..for example, he disagrees that the twine was a debris that wrapped around Conner's neck..his theory about Conner is that he might have been placed in a bag..!
But he wasn't called to testify to anything therefore, his opinion doesn't matter. If his expert opinion was so favorable to Scott, don't you ever wonder why he didn't testify??? I still wonder.

[Miss Bootsie]

So many imo's. Can you provide trial testimony or scientific info. to support the above opinions?

Being that your theory about the body being stored in a plastic bag doesn't provide for a sterile environment, your theory doesn't fit. That pesky word sterile that is part of the trial record keeps popping up. Doesn't it?

Your opinion about there being a hole in the Uterus doesn't fit , because Conner's body was broken down by a maceration/autolysis process. Bacteria didn't play a part in the process.

Your theory about Laci places her body in a bathtub partially submerged.

Why wasn't there evidence of insect activity?

I wonder how the burglars were aware early on they should store Conner's body in a plastic bag in an effort to mimic the uterus?

Why would they keep Laci's body upright, partially submerged in a bathtub? Any ideas? I have to wonder how they knew to mimic the temperature of the Bay also. So many pesky details to overcome if you want to support the "framing" theory.

Hmmm, I am curious why the burglars would go to the trouble of holding Conner's body and all the problems associated with storing the body - constant surveillance on the body submerged in a bag - transporting two bodies to separate shores of the Bay - risk of being caught planting Conner's body.

Laci's body being found on the shore would be sufficient to frame SP.

As Dr. P. testified, had Conner's body been in the waters of the Bay for a significant amount of time, there would be nothing left of his body.

That small body could have been disposed of and never found.

Why would anyone go to such extremes to hold Conner's body to frame SP?:shrug:

[Otter]

[QUOTE=Lavindar;8902130]

Hmmm, I am curious why the burglars would go to the trouble of holding Conner's body and all the problems associated with storing the body - constant surveillance on the body submerged in a bag - transporting two bodies to separate shores of the Bay - risk of being caught planting Conner's body.

Laci's body being found on the shore would be sufficient to frame SP.

As Dr. P. testified, had Conner's body been in the waters of the Bay for a significant amount of time, there would be nothing left of his body.

That small body could have been disposed of and never found.

Why would anyone go to such extremes to hold Conner's body to frame SP?:shrug:

Hi Boots! This has always mystified me too. The alternative theories become so hard to swallow because the only logical theory was proven in court.

The scenarios involving anyone other than SP can easily be disproven, as has been done on this board and others through the years. MOO.

[attorneywan2be]

So many imo's. Can you provide trial testimony or scientific info. to support the above opinions?

Being that your theory about the body being stored in a plastic bag doesn't provide for a sterile environment, your theory doesn't fit. That pesky word sterile that is part of the trial record keeps popping up. Doesn't it?

This is what you keep ignoring, he testified at the prelim and at the trial that something else could have protected Conner other than the uterus:

Mark Geragos: And I think I have asked you, I assume it's still your opinion, that it is possible for something else to have been protecting the baby, aside from Laci's uterus; is that correct?
Brian Peterson: Sure

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

David Harris: And when counsel was asking you about the possibility of Conner being in some protected environment, if we just look at individual pieces, that is possible, that he could have been protected in some other environment?
Brian Peterson: Correct.
David Harris: But, again, for him to be in that other protected environment, he would have had to come out of her womb, out of that uterus through that hole that was abraded out of the top?
Brian Peterson: Correct.

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

Your opinion about there being a hole in the Uterus doesn't fit , because Conner's body was broken down by a maceration/autolysis process. Bacteria didn't play a part in the process.

Again, you keep ignoring the fact that the ME testified that Conner was decomposed..in addition, he stated that Conner's organs were liquefied..

Putrefaction- Certainly the least pleasant stage of the decomposition process. Begins within three days of death. Many insects visiting and laying eggs. Corpse starts to change color with "streaking" along near-skin surface arteries and vessels, as blood begins to decompose. Skin color also darkens. After several days, insect larvae may begin to crawl out of the body. Scavenging animals (former pets, rodents, etc.) begin to partake of the meal. By a week after death, gases produced by bacterial and chemical processes begin to cause bloating of bodies. Internally, the bacteria that all humans live with every day, such as those found in the digestive tract, continue working on. But instead of the friendly bacteria's food source being what humans eat for food, it is now the dead human body itself which is consumed. Internal organs begin to liquefy. Within two weeks from onset of death, there is a bloody purge of putrefying liquid from the mouth, nose, anus, or any other opening. The stench from the rotting corpse is overwhelmingly powerful, if within an enclosed space. Soon, within weeks, the body bursts open under pressure, spilling its contents. Reeking liquids sink into whatever is under the corpse, be it a casket lining, a bed mattress, a floor, or soil. Vast quantities of insect larvae may pour out of the body, if insects have had prior access to it. Scavengers may pick apart the corpse, which tends to fall apart quite easily in this stage. At this point the dead body has become a very messy and nasty object, not one likely to endear any nearby living human.

Your theory about Laci places her body in a bathtub partially submerged.

Why wasn't there evidence of insect activity?

I wonder how the burglars were aware early on they should store Conner's body in a plastic bag in an effort to mimic the uterus?

Why would they keep Laci's body upright, partially submerged in a bathtub? Any ideas?

Insects activity? IMO, there wasn't evidence of exposure to marine life either..Barnacles attach to a body fairly quickly..she was found partially submerged in water..
Again, this is a theory, I wouldn't want to even think why those criminals did what they did...anyhow, the evidence indicates to me that Scott DIDN'T kill Laci and Laci was abducted..that's the bottom line..

[attorneywan2be]

But he wasn't called to testify to anything therefore, his opinion doesn't matter. If his expert opinion was so favorable to Scott, don't you ever wonder why he didn't testify??? I still wonder.


Maybe it doesn't matter to you.. but it does matter to me..IMO, Geragos made the wrong decision when he didn't call Dr.Wecht to testify..

[Lavindar]

LOL maybe they carted in seawater for appearance sake? :shrug:

On a serious note, I'd hope that any reasonable thinking human being would realize how silly it would be to think someone would go to this sort of trouble all for the sake of framing Scott Peterson. :read:

On second thought, I realize there are people who think that - but its unreasonable and way out there, IMO.

She also could not be proped up in bathrub as she had adipocere under her bra. Bath water will not change the color of the bra as much as it had discolored either.

Bath temp would have to mimic bay - about 50 degrees and I think hypothermia would set in also

[Lavindar]

Excellent Point. The logistics of accomplishing such a feat would be truly amazing. LE and others were looking for Laci. To be able to hide the body for any length of time undetected would be one thing, but to be able to move the body from a secret hiding place to the Bay simply to frame Scott just doesn't pass the "logic" test.

IMO

:seeya:Particularly when the dog alerted on her scent in Berkeley the morning of the 28th

[JustMyOpinion]

Maybe it doesn't matter to you.. but it does matter to me..IMO, Geragos made the wrong decision when he didn't call Dr.Wecht to testify..

I disagree. Had Wecht testified and been subjected to cross-examination.. his statements in the media prior to being hired by Peterson's defense would have been brought in, as would other cases wit similar evidence where he had testified, IMO.. he would have lost complete and total credibility as an expert witness & scientist ( in front of the jury..and..the public).......IMO. There was never a plan to call Wecht... IMO. He was hired to opine in the media,,,,,IMO Wecht agreed with the findings of the ME, IMO.

[Lavindar]

Maybe it doesn't matter to you.. but it does matter to me..IMO, Geragos made the wrong decision when he didn't call Dr.Wecht to testify..

I wish he would have. Another implosion would have been fun imo

[Lavindar]

This is what you keep ignoring, he testified at the prelim and at the trial that something else could have protected Conner other than the uterus:

Mark Geragos: And I think I have asked you, I assume it's still your opinion, that it is possible for something else to have been protecting the baby, aside from Laci's uterus; is that correct?
Brian Peterson: Sure

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

David Harris: And when counsel was asking you about the possibility of Conner being in some protected environment, if we just look at individual pieces, that is possible, that he could have been protected in some other environment?
Brian Peterson: Correct.
David Harris: But, again, for him to be in that other protected environment, he would have had to come out of her womb, out of that uterus through that hole that was abraded out of the top?
Brian Peterson: Correct.

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



Again, you keep ignoring the fact that the ME testified that Conner was decomposed..in addition, he stated that Conner's organs were liquefied..

Putrefaction- Certainly the least pleasant stage of the decomposition process. Begins within three days of death. Many insects visiting and laying eggs. Corpse starts to change color with "streaking" along near-skin surface arteries and vessels, as blood begins to decompose. Skin color also darkens. After several days, insect larvae may begin to crawl out of the body. Scavenging animals (former pets, rodents, etc.) begin to partake of the meal. By a week after death, gases produced by bacterial and chemical processes begin to cause bloating of bodies. Internally, the bacteria that all humans live with every day, such as those found in the digestive tract, continue working on. But instead of the friendly bacteria's food source being what humans eat for food, it is now the dead human body itself which is consumed. Internal organs begin to liquefy. Within two weeks from onset of death, there is a bloody purge of putrefying liquid from the mouth, nose, anus, or any other opening. The stench from the rotting corpse is overwhelmingly powerful, if within an enclosed space. Soon, within weeks, the body bursts open under pressure, spilling its contents. Reeking liquids sink into whatever is under the corpse, be it a casket lining, a bed mattress, a floor, or soil. Vast quantities of insect larvae may pour out of the body, if insects have had prior access to it. Scavengers may pick apart the corpse, which tends to fall apart quite easily in this stage. At this point the dead body has become a very messy and nasty object, not one likely to endear any nearby living human.



Insects activity? IMO, there wasn't evidence of exposure to marine life either..Barnacles attach to a body fairly quickly..she was found partially submerged in water..
Again, this is a theory, I wouldn't want to even think why those criminals did what they did...anyhow, the evidence indicates to me that Scott DIDN'T kill Laci and Laci was abducted..that's the bottom line..

adipocere will not form when insects are present. Baracles attach to inanimate objects. NOt too many blowflies in the Bay water...lol

No barnicles on Conner - no insects on him or on laci hmmm

You are describing decomposition on a body out of water, not one in water or in a protected sterile environment. Nice information, but totally irrelevant in this case

[Otter]

AW2B, the testimony you posted:

Mark Geragos: And I think I have asked you, I assume it's still your opinion, that it is possible for something else to have been protecting the baby, aside from Laci's uterus; is that correct?
Brian Peterson: Sure

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

David Harris: And when counsel was asking you about the possibility of Conner being in some protected environment, if we just look at individual pieces, that is possible, that he could have been protected in some other environment?
Brian Peterson: Correct.
David Harris: But, again, for him to be in that other protected environment, he would have had to come out of her womb, out of that uterus through that hole that was abraded out of the top?
Brian Peterson: Correct.

The operative words are "possible" in each answer. Lots of things are possible, not necessarily probable in light of who you believe kidnapped Laci. You're talking laboratory conditions here, not a plastic bag in a bathtub.

That's just my opinion, but seriously, MG wants the jury to hear about other alternatives. The jury rejected those alternatives. Rightly so, DH points out the problem of removing Conner by human hands, versus his expulsion through the abraded uterus.

[Lavindar]

Covena to warehouse is about a 14 minute drive according to my friend in Modesto. She drove it this morning. Not door-to-door - but street location to street location.

Another interesting fact is the Buena Vista, the street where Vivian Mitchell claims to have seen Laci - is UPHILL from LaLoma. So the assumption is that Laci walked about a mile to LaLoma and Buena Vista, then decided to climb the hill.

[Lavindar]

AW2B, the testimony you posted:



The operative words are "possible" in each answer. Lots of things are possible, not necessarily probable in light of who you believe kidnapped Laci. You're talking laboratory conditions here, not a plastic bag in a bathtub.

That's just my opinion, but seriously, MG wants the jury to hear about other alternatives. The jury rejected those alternatives. Rightly so, DH points out the problem of removing Conner by human hands, versus his expulsion through the abraded uterus.


PsycheNurse did an excellent job of explaining the difficulties of removing the baby via the funduc. I believe she left out that the legs were at the funduc - hte head was down according to her doctor visit. That would make it even more difficult extracting him at a right angle past the ribs without damaging him.

[Miss Bootsie]

Maybe it doesn't matter to you.. but it does matter to me..IMO, Geragos made the wrong decision when he didn't call Dr.Wecht to testify..

You make it seem as if Wecht could have taken the stand and disputed Dr. P's findings....but Geragos out of negligence, failed to call Wecht to testify.

If this is indeed your opinion, it is an insult to our intelligence. imo

That wasn't the case. Geragos had a lengthy meeting with Wecht and Lee. All came to a mutual understanding, that neither could provide testimony to help the defense.

I'm going to refer to this as imo, but I did read this in News articles and I think heard it in several interviews.

Why would Geragos put them on the stand to only agree with the State's expert witnesses and be subject to cross by the pros?

[Wearing A Halo]

These are questions posed by EKG from post #1539 on this thread

how does the dog play into it for you?

Karen Servas found Mackenzie with his leash on and took him to the backyard through an open gate. Mackenzie never pulled her in any direction such as towards the Medina's home or park or even toward the other intersection. Mackenzie gave no indication he was tired of running, pacing in any motion, nor barked hysterically to indicate any duress of any kind. Karen Servas found nothing amiss in or on the Peterson's property.

do you think he hooked him up to the leash and let him go to make it look like Laci was taken while walking him?

Yes, DRISP is surprised to even see Mackenzie and has to wonder what just happend for that to occur, someone must have put him back, but who, when. It could have been anyone who brought Mackenzie back, "but Laci."

and then when he got home and saw the dog there he what? panicked and decided to eat piazza,take a shower and wash some clothes to make it look normal?

DRISP did panic, but not hysterically and not because Laci wasn't there, but because Mackenzie was; "she’s always there." (with a leash on??)

DRISP ate piazza (or rather pizza) because, "(he) was damn hungry for that pizza when (he) got home." DRISP had to be "damn hungry" since he hadn't ate since he "had a bowl of cereal" for breakfast.

DRISP washed some clothes first, then, DRISP took a shower (where he does his pondering-"to make it look normal.")

I would think the dog would have been the one reason he could say he freak immediately.... "OMG Laci was supposed to walk the dog, and he's here with the leash on, the house is dark and her stuff is here, have you seen or talked to her?"

but no, he still takes his time a lets the perfect opportunity pass him by..??

DRISP comes home in the dark and sees Mackenzie with the leash on. This is the start of DRISP trying to come up with a change of events for him and Laci.

[frydaddy]

Maybe it doesn't matter to you.. but it does matter to me..IMO, Geragos made the wrong decision when he didn't call Dr.Wecht to testify..

Again, what qualifies you to second guess MG's decisions or strategies?

[I'mSun]

Maybe it doesn't matter to you.. but it does matter to me..IMO, Geragos made the wrong decision when he didn't call Dr.Wecht to testify..I can pretty much guarantee you that if Geragos thought Dr. Wecht's testimony would help, he would have called him to testify. Either it wouldn't help, or possibly could have hurt the case.

[Hey Paula]

Again, what qualifies you to second guess MG's decisions or strategies?

When Wecht and Lee aren't called to give testimoney [sic] you know there is nothing they can say which will help the defense, and for which they won't destroyed by the prosecution and/or lose their credibility in the process of attempting it. They didn't want to do the March of begging for slack.

IMO

[I'mSun]

Covena to warehouse is about a 14 minute drive according to my friend in Modesto. She drove it this morning. Not door-to-door - but street location to street location.

Another interesting fact is the Buena Vista, the street where Vivian Mitchell claims to have seen Laci - is UPHILL from LaLoma. So the assumption is that Laci walked about a mile to LaLoma and Buena Vista, then decided to climb the hill.That walk just doesn't make sense for a very pregnant woman - not uphill after already walking a mile.

[enlightenme]

These are questions posed by EKG from post #1539 on this thread

how does the dog play into it for you?

Karen Servas found Mackenzie with his leash on and took him to the backyard through an open gate. Mackenzie never pulled her in any direction such as towards the Medina's home or park or even toward the other intersection. Mackenzie gave no indication he was tired of running, pacing in any motion, nor barked hysterically to indicate any duress of any kind. Karen Servas found nothing amiss in or on the Peterson's property.

do you think he hooked him up to the leash and let him go to make it look like Laci was taken while walking him?

Yes, DRISP is surprised to even see Mackenzie and has to wonder what just happend for that to occur, someone must have put him back, but who, when. It could have been anyone who brought Mackenzie back, "but Laci."

and then when he got home and saw the dog there he what? panicked and decided to eat piazza,take a shower and wash some clothes to make it look normal?

DRISP did panic, but not hysterically and not because Laci wasn't there, but because Mackenzie was; "she’s always there." (with a leash on??)

DRISP ate piazza (or rather pizza) because, "(he) was damn hungry for that pizza when (he) got home." DRISP had to be "damn hungry" since he hadn't ate since he "had a bowl of cereal" for breakfast.

DRISP washed some clothes first, then, DRISP took a shower (where he does his pondering-"to make it look normal.")

I would think the dog would have been the one reason he could say he freak immediately.... "OMG Laci was supposed to walk the dog, and he's here with the leash on, the house is dark and her stuff is here, have you seen or talked to her?"

but no, he still takes his time a lets the perfect opportunity pass him by..??

DRISP comes home in the dark and sees Mackenzie with the leash on. This is the start of DRISP trying to come up with a change of events for him and Laci.


Great post WAH!

As for "state of mind" or CE of guilt, I have yet to have anyone give me a logical, innocent explanation for why Scott would return to the bay FIVE times. Using rental cars. Lying to 3 people as to his wereabouts.

Anyone game?

[Wearing A Halo]

http://www.findlaci2003.us/lee-wecht-5-17-04.html

MG didn't hire either one of them to testify, instead he hired them to stop talking to the media about the "damning CE." and spin it 180 degrees. (IMO,OC)

[Lavindar]

http://www.findlaci2003.us/lee-wecht-5-17-04.html

MG didn't hire either one of them to testify, instead he hired them to stop talking to the media about the "damning CE." and spin it 180 degrees. (IMO,OC)


You may very well be right. I read Lee's latest book and he spend many pages saying that he could find nothing that did not support the prosecution's theory in his book. At least he was honest in writing. Wecht, on the other hand did a 180 degree turn around when the money came his way.

[Lavindar]

Great post WAH!

As for "state of mind" or CE of guilt, I have yet to have anyone give me a logical, innocent explanation for why Scott would return to the bay FIVE times. Using rental cars. Lying to 3 people as to his wereabouts.

Anyone game? Wasn't his excuse that he wanted to find witnesses. Little hard to do when al you do is stare out over hte water for a few minutes and then leave. My opinion is that he wanted to make sure the searchers were NOT in the right area.

[PsychNurse;~)]

Great post WAH!

As for "state of mind" or CE of guilt, I have yet to have anyone give me a logical, innocent explanation for why Scott would return to the bay FIVE times. Using rental cars. Lying to 3 people as to his wereabouts.

Anyone game?


:seeya: hi enlightenme!

i'd just like to add that none of those secret trips to the bay lasted longer than 5 minutes. 5 minutes isn't long enough to do anything beyond checking to see if law enforcement is looking in the right place or not.

oh yeah, he never spoke to anyone during those 5 minutes, either.



cyn

[enlightenme]

I want to make a prediction about Peterson's appeals. First, he'll lose the first one.

IF, and this is a HUGE IF, he even wins an appeal and gets a new trial, there will be no defense experts talking about plastic bags, bodies getting moved, bodies planted on the shore, or anything like that. They many have another one like Dr. Cut-me-slack March who will try to prolong Conner's life for four days, like he did.

The prosecution will put on the same evidence, hopefully abbreviated some and the defense will try and punch holes in it and raise reasonable doubt. Then Peterson will be found guilty with maybe LWOP this time.

JMO

[adnoid]

When Wecht and Lee aren't called to give testimoney [sic] you know there is nothing they can say which will help the defense, and for which they won't destroyed by the prosecution and/or lose their credibility in the process of attempting it. They didn't want to do the March of begging for slack.

IMO

The concept of Wecht and Lee losing their credibility is comparable to me misplacing my Learjet.

[enlightenme]

The concept of Wecht and Lee losing their credibility is comparable to me misplacing my Learjet.


:hat: :lol: :biggrin:

[frydaddy]

When Wecht and Lee aren't called to give testimoney [sic] you know there is nothing they can say which will help the defense, and for which they won't destroyed by the prosecution and/or lose their credibility in the process of attempting it. They didn't want to do the March of begging for slack.

IMO

One would have to be a complete fool to believe that MG would fly Lee and Wecht to California, have them look at the evidence, hear them say they could help SP's cause, and then not use them. The ONLY LOGICAL conclusion is that Wecht and Lee could not help SP's cause and thus, they went home. Brings up a question...has anyone in the family publicly called out MG for doing a poor job? Have they commented on Lee and Wecht at all? Anyone know?

[Lavindar]

One would have to be a complete fool to believe that MG would fly Lee and Wecht to California, have them look at the evidence, hear them say they could help SP's cause, and then not use them. The ONLY LOGICAL conclusion is that Wecht and Lee could not help SP's cause and thus, they went home. Brings up a question...has anyone in the family publicly called out MG for doing a poor job? Have they commented on Lee and Wecht at all? Anyone know?

I think they are too busy still blaming the Rocha family for their woes, or the Nazis in Modesto, or anyone but their son

[frydaddy]

The concept of Wecht and Lee losing their credibility is comparable to me misplacing my Learjet.

Be pretty funny if your Learjet's name was Virginity, IMO!







I'm just sayin'...it would be funny...right? :shrug:

[frydaddy]

I think they are too busy still blaming the Rocha family for their woes, or the Nazis in Modesto, or anyone but their son

I'd just think that the P's would be more logical to raise this issue, is all. Aside from that, you may well be right! ;)

[Lavindar]

I'd just think that the P's would be more logical to raise this issue, is all. Aside from that, you may well be right! ;)

Hatred seems to have more power in their lives. The issues they try to raise are ludicrous I believe Voice of Sanity sent a very complete answer to their challenge, but their reasponse was they wanted a minute by minute explanation of where Scott was and what he was doing. If I am incorrect in my recollection, someone please correct me.

[frydaddy]

Hatred seems to have more power in their lives. The issues they try to raise are ludicrous I believe Voice of Sanity sent a very complete answer to their challenge, but their reasponse was they wanted a minute by minute explanation of where Scott was and what he was doing. If I am incorrect in my recollection, someone please correct me.

I'd need more details on this. Did they specifically submit a wish to have someone explain his minute by minute activities? Did they further respond when someone did? If so, THAT is the worst endorsement for innocence I have ever seen. Am I missing something?

[Lavindar]

I'd need more details on this. Did they specifically submit a wish to have someone explain his minute by minute activities? Did they further respond when someone did? If so, THAT is the worst endorsement for innocence I have ever seen. Am I missing something?

Let me see if I can find it for you. It's interesting reading.

[Miss Bootsie]

I want to make a prediction about Peterson's appeals. First, he'll lose the first one.

IF, and this is a HUGE IF, he even wins an appeal and gets a new trial, there will be no defense experts talking about plastic bags, bodies getting moved, bodies planted on the shore, or anything like that. They many have another one like Dr. Cut-me-slack March who will try to prolong Conner's life for four days, like he did.

The prosecution will put on the same evidence, hopefully abbreviated some and the defense will try and punch holes in it and raise reasonable doubt. Then Peterson will be found guilty with maybe LWOP this time.

JMO

I agree with your prediction.

[Lavindar]

I'd need more details on this. Did they specifically submit a wish to have someone explain his minute by minute activities? Did they further respond when someone did? If so, THAT is the worst endorsement for innocence I have ever seen. Am I missing something?


PM for you, fry

[frydaddy]

PM for you, fry

Got it...thanks...I appreciate ya!!! ;)

[Miss Bootsie]

This is what you keep ignoring, he testified at the prelim and at the trial that something else could have protected Conner other than the uterus:

Mark Geragos: And I think I have asked you, I assume it's still your opinion, that it is possible for something else to have been protecting the baby, aside from Laci's uterus; is that correct?
Brian Peterson: Sure

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

David Harris: And when counsel was asking you about the possibility of Conner being in some protected environment, if we just look at individual pieces, that is possible, that he could have been protected in some other environment?
Brian Peterson: Correct.
David Harris: But, again, for him to be in that other protected environment, he would have had to come out of her womb, out of that uterus through that hole that was abraded out of the top?
Brian Peterson: Correct.

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



Again, you keep ignoring the fact that the ME testified that Conner was decomposed..in addition, he stated that Conner's organs were liquefied..

Putrefaction- Certainly the least pleasant stage of the decomposition process. Begins within three days of death. Many insects visiting and laying eggs. Corpse starts to change color with "streaking" along near-skin surface arteries and vessels, as blood begins to decompose. Skin color also darkens. After several days, insect larvae may begin to crawl out of the body. Scavenging animals (former pets, rodents, etc.) begin to partake of the meal. By a week after death, gases produced by bacterial and chemical processes begin to cause bloating of bodies. Internally, the bacteria that all humans live with every day, such as those found in the digestive tract, continue working on. But instead of the friendly bacteria's food source being what humans eat for food, it is now the dead human body itself which is consumed. Internal organs begin to liquefy. Within two weeks from onset of death, there is a bloody purge of putrefying liquid from the mouth, nose, anus, or any other opening. The stench from the rotting corpse is overwhelmingly powerful, if within an enclosed space. Soon, within weeks, the body bursts open under pressure, spilling its contents. Reeking liquids sink into whatever is under the corpse, be it a casket lining, a bed mattress, a floor, or soil. Vast quantities of insect larvae may pour out of the body, if insects have had prior access to it. Scavengers may pick apart the corpse, which tends to fall apart quite easily in this stage. At this point the dead body has become a very messy and nasty object, not one likely to endear any nearby living human.



Insects activity? IMO, there wasn't evidence of exposure to marine life either..Barnacles attach to a body fairly quickly..she was found partially submerged in water..
Again, this is a theory, I wouldn't want to even think why those criminals did what they did...anyhow, the evidence indicates to me that Scott DIDN'T kill Laci and Laci was abducted..that's the bottom line..

AW, I have quoted trial testimony and even posted scientific information and links to support the testimony and Dr. Peterson's opinion. Others have done the same, before me.
I'm sorry, but the testimony doesn't support your bag theory.

It was Dr. Peterson's opinion after examination of the body, Conner was in a sterile environment for 4-months.

Can't have it both ways. You can't have decomposition (bacteria) and a sterile environment.

It's obvious Dr. Peterson used the lay term several times rather than the scientific term to describe the condition of Conner's body. People often refer to the maceration of a still-born as being decomposed.

I think you are giving Dr. Peterson credit when you need him to support your argument, but you are not giving him any credibility on his opinion.

If I didn't value an expert opinion, or I thought the expert's opinion didn't make any sense,I wouldn't give any credit to anything else the expert had to say.

[adnoid]

...I have yet to have anyone give me a logical, innocent explanation for why Scott would return to the bay FIVE times. Using rental cars. Lying to 3 people as to his wereabouts.

Anyone game?

I know! Because he's a nervous lying murderer.

What do I win?

[Otter]

I know! Because he's a nervous lying murderer.

What do I win?

:lol: How about a close facsimile of a SQ sack lunch?

[I'mSun]

I know! Because he's a nervous lying murderer.

What do I win? Congratulations! :beer: And, that's not all ~ you also win some RED FONT!

[enlightenme]

I know! Because he's a nervous lying murderer.

What do I win?


well, of course, that's the RIGHT answer. The logical, common sense answer. But you get no prize because it doesn't point towards his (cough, cough) innocence.

Better luck next time. ;)

[adnoid]

:lol: How about a close facsimile of a SQ sack lunch?

Is that supposed to be lunch?

(I know, obscure reference, but some of you will get it...)

[adnoid]

...you also win some RED FONT!

Dang. I've got enough of that to sink a battleship. What's second prize?

[PsychNurse;~)]

PM for you, fry

any interesting reading for me??? hint hint, lol.

cyn

[Lavindar]

any interesting reading for me??? hint hint, lol.

cyn
can you pm me with an email add? The semicolon in your name is what is used to divide up multiple pm addys so it doesn't recognize your name to send a pm to. I know, it's probably not even a semicolon, but these old eyes, even with glasses aren't so good. Tried clicking on your profile and keep getting message that PsycheNurse and ~) do not exist. Maybe if I had a return pm addy to send it to, it might work

[PsychNurse;~)]

lavindar, check your pm's please!

cyn

[Lavindar]

lavindar, check your pm's please!

cyn

You've got email (same problem when I hit reply on pm)

[Lavindar]

Dang. I've go[t enough of that to sink a battleship. What's second prize? I'd go with the red font over the SQ lunch if I were you.

[ekg]

How much credibility does a person who first said she saw a couple of men in the street and a van (a common sight) and then says she witnessed a burglary have?

I think that Geragos knew that Diane Jackson was a nut, and he would have hated for her to have been called as a witness.

soooo.. you can doubt her and what she said she saw.......when IIRC it's backed up by another independent source..... but I can't doubt Amie K heard Golfin instead of Gone?
;) :biggrin:

[ekg]

What day was his direct and what day was his cross again? I can't seem to find it in the TS.

ppl here use Crier for a source all the time ..They've also used Anne Bird...so what's wrong with using Wecht?? He's pretty renowned for this kind of stuff isn't he?

[Lavindar]

soooo.. you can doubt her and what she said she saw.......when IIRC it's backed up by another independent source..... but I can't doubt Amie K heard Golfin instead of Gone?
;) :biggrin:


ekg, do you remember WHO backed up Jackson's siting? I do not recall that anyone else reported that van

[Lavindar]

ppl here use Crier for a source all the time ..They've also used Anne Bird...so what's wrong with using Wecht?? He's pretty renowned for this kind of stuff isn't he?


I agree Wecht is renowned, but his comments on the case prior to being hired and post-being hired were a 180 degree turnaround. If you listened to him on Anna Nichole Smith, his story changed almost daily, supporting the ME in Florida when that information was supposed to be gagged, yet Wecht let it slip - if you look at Wecht and the guy in Florida, they were good friends, and I strong suspect that Wecht was his Richard Cole

[PsychNurse;~)]

soooo.. you can doubt her and what she said she saw.......when IIRC it's backed up by another independent source..... but I can't doubt Amie K heard Golfin instead of Gone?
;) :biggrin:

no, no you can't.

lol!

j/k

:biggrin:

i don't recall any independent corroboration of that van, though. who was that?

cyn

[ekg]

He said there were barnacles. He didn't say there were NO barnacles.


I disagree..



Originally Posted by attorneywan2be View Post
It is not my opinion...it is a fact..

His testimony at the prelim:

8 Q. Did you notice any barnacles?
9 A. There were no barnacles on the body. There was
10 some barnacle on the clothing, but not on her.

His testimony at the trial:

David Harris: Now, you are talking about this body, Miss Peterson being in a marine environment. So when you are looking at this initial general observation, was there something on the body that was giving you a strong indication she had been in a marine environment?
Brian Peterson: Well, I think the adipocere was helpful. There were barnacles on bone that was also helpful. To me, the mineralization, the stony deposits on clothing, was also an indicator.
David Harris: Now, to go back to that. One of the things that you said, barnacles on bones. Could you describe that for us?
Brian Peterson: Well, I did not see barnacles on soft tissue. But to my eye, one, I believe it was the femur, there were barnacles. I couldn't get any more specific than that. I don't really know a whole lot about barnacles. I know one when I see them, I guess.


I think he absolutely said "there were NO barnacles"

[attorneywan2be]

ppl here use Crier for a source all the time ..They've also used Anne Bird...so what's wrong with using Wecht?? He's pretty renowned for this kind of stuff isn't he?

That's in addition to the fact that he did examine the bodies...so he has the edge!

[PsychNurse;~)]

ppl here use Crier for a source all the time ..They've also used Anne Bird...so what's wrong with using Wecht?? He's pretty renowned for this kind of stuff isn't he?

yeah, he is; though maybe was would be more accurate nowadays.

i almost fell off my couch when he had that major melt-down on cc's show. it was sooo totally off the wall, so unexpected, even cc's eyes were almost popping out of her head as she was trying to cut him off. i swear she was almost laughing at the end.

cyn

[Lavindar]

no, no you can't.

lol!

j/k

:biggrin:

i don't recall any independent corroboration of that van, though. who was that?

cyn

In the middle of October (pre-preliminary) defense made a motion and got it to not allow Kristen Dempewolfe to testify as she had been hypnotised. Diane Jackson had been hypnotised also and so it was highly unlikely that Diane would be allowed to testify. I believe that Geragos put her on the witness list with NO intention of calling her - just to get a gag order on her so she could NOT deny the safe. It worked for her - unfortunately, the gag order rule did not work for the Petersons.

[attorneywan2be]

I agree Wecht is renowned, but his comments on the case prior to being hired and post-being hired were a 180 degree turnaround.

Snip



Initially, his opinion was based on media reports..then later on, his opinion was based on the his actual examination of the bodies...

[ekg]

ekg, do you remember WHO backed up Jackson's siting? I do not recall that anyone else reported that van


no, I don't remember....... so I guess I should should change that to IDRC?

*i didn't remember correctly:tongue:

I usually have 6 or 6 windows open so I can 'fact-check'.... but I really thought another person mentioned what DJ mentioned...so I relied on my 'faulty' memory..

It's been a LONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG day.... I apologize for my mistake..:o

[PsychNurse;~)]

That's in addition to the fact that he did examine the bodies...so he has the edge!

does put him above cc and others, but keep in mind that neither wecht nor lee were allowed to handle the remains; but did have full access to pics, reports, etc.

so what do you think about dr. lee stating in his book that he couldn't have added anything to help the defense in isp's case?

cyn

[ekg]

So, how do you get barnacles while propped up in a bath tub for months?? :biggrin:


the remains only had to be in the bay for 6 hrs for barnacles to find,attach and form on her...

here's lots of info on this......... (yes, I've had this argument before:tongue: )



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

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



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

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

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



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

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



http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/...99/barnac.html
Then another complete transformation occurs. Within twelve hours after attachment it builds a shell made of several (mostly six) plates. The rest of it's life the now adult barnacle will stay positioned with it's head down.



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

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/...99/barnac.html

[ekg]

I've always wondered what possible reason someone would have for wanting to frame ISP. Scott wasn't wealthy or famous. He was a fertilizer salesman, a liar and a cheater. What is there to be gained?


their own freedom?


if they(he/she) didn't make it look like Scott LE would rule him out and then go looking for whoever really did it right?

it's not a matter of it being Scott Peterson.. it's was just him or them...

I don't know why that reason alone isn't enough of a reason to do it...:shrug:

[ekg]

sorry guys... I don't have much time tonight.... I'll be back tomorrow to play some more....:biggrin:

you guys have a good night...:seeya:

[Lavindar]

Initially, his opinion was based on media reports..then later on, his opinion was based on the his actual examination of the bodies... are you saying that he suspended any knowledge he had as a medical examiner when he heard the media reports?

[PsychNurse;~)]

sorry guys... I don't have much time tonight.... I'll be back tomorrow to play some more....:biggrin:

you guys have a good night...:seeya:

night ekg--see ya tomorrow.

cyn

[Lavindar]

I disagree..





I think he absolutely said "there were NO barnacles"

9 A. There were no barnacles on the body. There was
10 some barnacle on the clothing, but not on her.

Sounds like there were barnicles to me

[attorneywan2be]

does put him above cc and others, but keep in mind that neither wecht nor lee were allowed to handle the remains; but did have full access to pics, reports, etc.

Snip




That's incorrect, Dr. Wecht examined the bodies..he performed an autopsy

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, let me ask you some questions about it. Let me ask you the real heart of the matter. What is your opinion? Is your opinion that Conner was born dead or alive? Was Conner born alive, sir?

WECHT: I'm unable to give a definitive opinion. The organs and tissues were so decomposed that microscopic examination did not yield the answer. If we have a body that is reasonably fresh, then we can make that kind of determination. But there is no way to say that that baby definitely was born dead.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, let me ask you another quick question because these go right to the heart of the matter. I don't mean to put you on the stand, but I guess I am a little bit.

WECHT: No, it's OK, Greta. Go ahead. Go ahead.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Can you estimate when Conner died?

WECHT: No, I can't, for the same reason. There was meconium (search), so the baby probably died within 48 hours, did not have to die right away. Let me say that there is no way to defensively state that that baby could not have been removed from the uterus. And the idea that, as one of your panelists who's not with you this evening has wildly explained as bizarre and so on — Jeffrey Dahmer was bizarre and Robert Berdella (search) was bizarre. And there's a lot of things that are bizarre, and especially in the state of California. So to remove a baby and to keep it alive for a short while, the baby dies, for whatever reason.

And you know that twine around the neck and over the shoulder, on the arm? How about if there is some kind of a bag that is over the baby that is held in place with that tape, and the bag dissolves and breaks apart in the water and the tape remains? There are a lot of explanations. The baby's head was 28 centimeters circumference. I measured 20 centimeters around the neck. You talk about something coming over the head, the body's floating in the water? You couldn't do that in a million years.

There's lot of things that are inexplicable in this case, and the idea that, Oh, it's absolutely definite — you can talk all you want about Amber Frey and you can talk all you want about what a cad he is and his dyed hair and his money in the wallet, the fundamental things apply, as they say in that song, Greta. And where was the death? When was the death? What was the mechanism of the death? Where's all the biological forensic evidence in this case? Where is it? Where is it?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136952,00.html

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


Jeffrey Soler: Actually, the date was probably the 20th of August and, again, I'm referring to my report.
Mark Geragos: And that was when I had called you up and specifically called your unit up and specifically said that I wanted to take a look at that tape; isn't that correct?
Jeffrey Soler: Um,
Mark Geragos: In connection with a defense autopsy?
Jeffrey Soler: I believe so, sir.
Mark Geragos: And specifically that was the first time that anybody from Modesto P.D. had ever thought or contacted you about having that tape turned over to the Department of Justice for testing was in August, late August of 2003, almost three months, four months after, actually, four months after the baby had been recovered, correct?
David Harris: Objection, speculation and argumentative.
Judge Delucchi: He's asking if the Modesto police had called. He can answer.
Mark Geragos: But nobody called you between April 13th and August 20th to have that tape or that twine turned over to the Department of Justice for testing, did they?
Jeffrey Soler: That was the first time I received a call.
Mark Geragos: And you received that call after I had contacted you and specifically said I wanted that twine to be taken down to the Coroner's Office in conjunction with a defense autopsy; isn't that correct?
Jeffrey Soler: I believe so, sir.
Mark Geragos: And then you had a conversation with Detective Grogan, you called Grogan at that point; isn't that correct?
Jeffrey Soler: I believe so.
Mark Geragos: And you called Grogan because before you had one of the defense to take a look at it you wanted to make sure that the prosecution knew that that's what you were going to do; is that correct?
Jeffrey Soler: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Now specifically the other items, was that the only item that was maintained at Richmond P.D. in the evidence locker that you're aware of in connection with this case?
Jeffrey Soler: Yes, sir.

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

http://www.modbee.com/local/story/7276853p-8202716c.html

[attorneywan2be]

9 A. There were no barnacles on the body. There was
10 some barnacle on the clothing, but not on her.

Sounds like there were barnicles to me

The issue is, he testified at the prelim that there were NO BARABCLES on the body just on the clothing...he testified at the trial that there were barnacles on her bone...!!!!

[Lavindar]

That's incorrect, Dr. Wecht examined the bodies..he performed an autopsy

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, let me ask you some questions about it. Let me ask you the real heart of the matter. What is your opinion? Is your opinion that Conner was born dead or alive? Was Conner born alive, sir?

WECHT: I'm unable to give a definitive opinion. The organs and tissues were so decomposed that microscopic examination did not yield the answer. If we have a body that is reasonably fresh, then we can make that kind of determination. But there is no way to say that that baby definitely was born dead.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, let me ask you another quick question because these go right to the heart of the matter. I don't mean to put you on the stand, but I guess I am a little bit.

WECHT: No, it's OK, Greta. Go ahead. Go ahead.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Can you estimate when Conner died?

WECHT: No, I can't, for the same reason. There was meconium (search), so the baby probably died within 48 hours, did not have to die right away. Let me say that there is no way to defensively state that that baby could not have been removed from the uterus. And the idea that, as one of your panelists who's not with you this evening has wildly explained as bizarre and so on — Jeffrey Dahmer was bizarre and Robert Berdella (search) was bizarre. And there's a lot of things that are bizarre, and especially in the state of California. So to remove a baby and to keep it alive for a short while, the baby dies, for whatever reason.

And you know that twine around the neck and over the shoulder, on the arm? How about if there is some kind of a bag that is over the baby that is held in place with that tape, and the bag dissolves and breaks apart in the water and the tape remains? There are a lot of explanations. The baby's head was 28 centimeters circumference. I measured 20 centimeters around the neck. You talk about something coming over the head, the body's floating in the water? You couldn't do that in a million years.

There's lot of things that are inexplicable in this case, and the idea that, Oh, it's absolutely definite — you can talk all you want about Amber Frey and you can talk all you want about what a cad he is and his dyed hair and his money in the wallet, the fundamental things apply, as they say in that song, Greta. And where was the death? When was the death? What was the mechanism of the death? Where's all the biological forensic evidence in this case? Where is it? Where is it?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136952,00.html

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


Jeffrey Soler: Actually, the date was probably the 20th of August and, again, I'm referring to my report.
Mark Geragos: And that was when I had called you up and specifically called your unit up and specifically said that I wanted to take a look at that tape; isn't that correct?
Jeffrey Soler: Um,
Mark Geragos: In connection with a defense autopsy?
Jeffrey Soler: I believe so, sir.
Mark Geragos: And specifically that was the first time that anybody from Modesto P.D. had ever thought or contacted you about having that tape turned over to the Department of Justice for testing was in August, late August of 2003, almost three months, four months after, actually, four months after the baby had been recovered, correct?
David Harris: Objection, speculation and argumentative.
Judge Delucchi: He's asking if the Modesto police had called. He can answer.
Mark Geragos: But nobody called you between April 13th and August 20th to have that tape or that twine turned over to the Department of Justice for testing, did they?
Jeffrey Soler: That was the first time I received a call.
Mark Geragos: And you received that call after I had contacted you and specifically said I wanted that twine to be taken down to the Coroner's Office in conjunction with a defense autopsy; isn't that correct?
Jeffrey Soler: I believe so, sir.
Mark Geragos: And then you had a conversation with Detective Grogan, you called Grogan at that point; isn't that correct?
Jeffrey Soler: I believe so.
Mark Geragos: And you called Grogan because before you had one of the defense to take a look at it you wanted to make sure that the prosecution knew that that's what you were going to do; is that correct?
Jeffrey Soler: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Now specifically the other items, was that the only item that was maintained at Richmond P.D. in the evidence locker that you're aware of in connection with this case?
Jeffrey Soler: Yes, sir.

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

http://www.modbee.com/local/story/7276853p-8202716c.html



You are relying on media again. Stick to the testimony and things that were shown to the jury. I recall the judge saying that Wecht and Lee could see the reports and the bodies, but not handle them.

[attorneywan2be]

are you saying that he suspended any knowledge he had as a medical examiner when he heard the media reports?

What are you talking about?? I think my post was very clear that before he examined the bodies his opinion was based on what was said in the media ..AFTER he did an autopsy on the bodies he had a different opinion..an informed opinion..

[attorneywan2be]

You are relying on media again. Stick to the testimony and things that were shown to the jury. I recall the judge saying that Wecht and Lee could see the reports and the bodies, but not handle them.

I posted what Dr Wecht said on Greta..and I posted the TS of the trial...a defense autopsy was done...PERIOD!... end of story!

[attorneywan2be]

sorry guys... I don't have much time tonight.... I'll be back tomorrow to play some more....:biggrin:

you guys have a good night...:seeya:


Good night ekg...see ya tomorrow ..:seeya:

[Lavindar]

That's in addition to the fact that he did examine the bodies...so he has the edge!

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

He was NOT allowed to perform an autopsy on the bodies per this court document. That must mean he fabricated that stuff to Greta

[Lavindar]

I posted what Dr Wecht said on Greta..and I posted the TS of the trial...a defense autopsy was done...PERIOD!... end of story!
NOt quite - the court said he could NOT. Read the document below.

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

[PsychNurse;~)]

I posted what Dr Wecht said on Greta..and I posted the TS of the trial...a defense autopsy was done...PERIOD!... end of story!

:lol:

getting a little uptight there? seriously, chill out!

the defense's autopsy did not include physically handling the remains. they were allowed to look only! they were given full access to the pics, reports, etc.

that was the extent of their 'defense autopsy'.

cyn

[adnoid]

What are you talking about?? I think my post was very clear that before he examined the bodies his opinion was based on what was said in the media ..AFTER he did an autopsy on the bodies he had a different opinion..an informed opinion..

Good to know Wecht feels comfortable attaching his name to uninformed opinions. As I recall, he diagnosed Arafat with AIDS without ever being in the same country with him:

http://www.threeriverspost.com/2006/02/23/180

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_273225.html

The type of source I trust. :lol:

(Since that letter was based on Media™ reports rather than autopsy, the opinions must be "uninformed".)

[adnoid]

NOt quite - the court said he could NOT. Read the document below.

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

I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with facts.

[PsychNurse;~)]

and you can repeat the 28 cm foc vs the length of the tape around conner's neck as many times as you want.

the reality remains that the tape was looped 1 and a half (yes that's one AND A HALF) times around conner's neck under left arm with the knot at the left shoulder blade.

the reality remains that the pics done by the courtroom artist were shown on ctv and other channels at the time and clearly show this was not an item that was tied around conner's neck.

i'm sorry you have so much trouble accepting that, i really am. it seems to limit your ability to move on to considering other alternatives.

cyn

[attorneywan2be]

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

He was NOT allowed to perform an autopsy on the bodies per this court document. That must mean he fabricated that stuff to Greta


According to the document you provided, they are allowed to perform an autopsy and to remove a reasonable amounts of tissue and/or fluid samples for testing..

Please read it again!!!!

[attorneywan2be]

:lol:

getting a little uptight there? seriously, chill out!

the defense's autopsy did not include physically handling the remains. they were allowed to look only! they were given full access to the pics, reports, etc.

that was the extent of their 'defense autopsy'.

cyn

It doesn't matter how many times you will say that Wecht didn't perform an autopsy..he did, and it is a fact..and you know facts are stubborn things that would not go away! and it's in the trial TS that I posted..!

[PsychNurse;~)]

According to the document you provided, they are allowed to perform an autopsy and to remove a reasonable amounts of tissue and/or fluid samples for testing..

Please read it again!!!!

do you know what an autopsy actually is and what it consists of? i'm guessing not since you're so adamant about this.

during my schooling (thanks to my le background) i was present during over 2 dozen autopsies so i know very well what they consist of.

cyn

[Lavindar]

What are you talking about?? I think my post was very clear that before he examined the bodies his opinion was based on what was said in the media ..AFTER he did an autopsy on the bodies he had a different opinion..an informed opinion..


The order was amended later to allow them xrays - but they were NOT allowed to handle the body. So wecht is lying.

No other orders were given until October

[attorneywan2be]

NOt quite - the court said he could NOT. Read the document below.

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

Read it again..autopsy was allowed and the removal of tissues and fluid samples for testing..unless the judge meant to remove tissues and fluid from photographs...LOL

[Lavindar]

According to the document you provided, they are allowed to perform an autopsy and to remove a reasonable amounts of tissue and/or fluid samples for testing..

Please read it again!!!!


I did - what part of LIMITED TO VISUAL INSPECTION do you not understand?

An autopsy involves handling and cutting

[Lavindar]

Read it again..autopsy was allowed and the removal of tissues and fluid samples for testing..unless the judge meant to remove tissues and fluid from photographs...LOL

tissues and fluid samplings would have been removed in the original autopsy. They were allowed to examine and test those They were NOT allowed to handle the bodies

[Lavindar]

That's incorrect, Dr. Wecht examined the bodies..he performed an autopsy

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, let me ask you some questions about it. Let me ask you the real heart of the matter. What is your opinion? Is your opinion that Conner was born dead or alive? Was Conner born alive, sir?

WECHT: I'm unable to give a definitive opinion. The organs and tissues were so decomposed that microscopic examination did not yield the answer. If we have a body that is reasonably fresh, then we can make that kind of determination. But there is no way to say that that baby definitely was born dead.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, let me ask you another quick question because these go right to the heart of the matter. I don't mean to put you on the stand, but I guess I am a little bit.

WECHT: No, it's OK, Greta. Go ahead. Go ahead.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Can you estimate when Conner died?

WECHT: No, I can't, for the same reason. There was meconium (search), so the baby probably died within 48 hours, did not have to die right away. Let me say that there is no way to defensively state that that baby could not have been removed from the uterus. And the idea that, as one of your panelists who's not with you this evening has wildly explained as bizarre and so on — Jeffrey Dahmer was bizarre and Robert Berdella (search) was bizarre. And there's a lot of things that are bizarre, and especially in the state of California. So to remove a baby and to keep it alive for a short while, the baby dies, for whatever reason.

And you know that twine around the neck and over the shoulder, on the arm? How about if there is some kind of a bag that is over the baby that is held in place with that tape, and the bag dissolves and breaks apart in the water and the tape remains? There are a lot of explanations. The baby's head was 28 centimeters circumference. I measured 20 centimeters around the neck. You talk about something coming over the head, the body's floating in the water? You couldn't do that in a million years.

There's lot of things that are inexplicable in this case, and the idea that, Oh, it's absolutely definite — you can talk all you want about Amber Frey and you can talk all you want about what a cad he is and his dyed hair and his money in the wallet, the fundamental things apply, as they say in that song, Greta. And where was the death? When was the death? What was the mechanism of the death? Where's all the biological forensic evidence in this case? Where is it? Where is it?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136952,00.html

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


Jeffrey Soler: Actually, the date was probably the 20th of August and, again, I'm referring to my report.
Mark Geragos: And that was when I had called you up and specifically called your unit up and specifically said that I wanted to take a look at that tape; isn't that correct?
Jeffrey Soler: Um,
Mark Geragos: In connection with a defense autopsy?
Jeffrey Soler: I believe so, sir.
Mark Geragos: And specifically that was the first time that anybody from Modesto P.D. had ever thought or contacted you about having that tape turned over to the Department of Justice for testing was in August, late August of 2003, almost three months, four months after, actually, four months after the baby had been recovered, correct?
David Harris: Objection, speculation and argumentative.
Judge Delucchi: He's asking if the Modesto police had called. He can answer.
Mark Geragos: But nobody called you between April 13th and August 20th to have that tape or that twine turned over to the Department of Justice for testing, did they?
Jeffrey Soler: That was the first time I received a call.
Mark Geragos: And you received that call after I had contacted you and specifically said I wanted that twine to be taken down to the Coroner's Office in conjunction with a defense autopsy; isn't that correct?
Jeffrey Soler: I believe so, sir.
Mark Geragos: And then you had a conversation with Detective Grogan, you called Grogan at that point; isn't that correct?
Jeffrey Soler: I believe so.
Mark Geragos: And you called Grogan because before you had one of the defense to take a look at it you wanted to make sure that the prosecution knew that that's what you were going to do; is that correct?
Jeffrey Soler: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Now specifically the other items, was that the only item that was maintained at Richmond P.D. in the evidence locker that you're aware of in connection with this case?
Jeffrey Soler: Yes, sir.

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

http://www.modbee.com/local/story/7276853p-8202716c.html Please quote more police officers. The order was given to the Contra Costa Medical Examiner's office, not to the police officer. He doesn't know - he "believes" so. I think you "believe" Scott will be freed but that don't make it so

[Lavindar]

It doesn't matter how many times you will say that Wecht didn't perform an autopsy..he did, and it is a fact..and you know facts are stubborn things that would not go away! and it's in the trial TS that I posted..!
He SAID he did - he lied. He was allowed to test tissue and fluids that were already removed. HE was permitted a VISUAL only. That is not an autopsy. An autopsy involves an incision and removal of and touching organs.

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


There are two parts to the physical examination of the body: the external and internal examination. Toxicology, biochemical tests and/or genetic testing often supplement these and frequently assist the pathologist in assigning the cause or causes of death.


Once the external evidence is collected, the body is removed from the bag, undressed and any wounds present are examined. The body is then cleaned, weighed and measured in preparation for the internal examination. The scale used to weigh the body is often designed to accommodate the cart that the body is transported on; its weight is then deducted from the total weight shown to give the weight of the body.

If not already within an autopsy room, the body is transported to one and placed on a table. A general description of the body as regards race, sex, age, hair color and length, eye color and other distinguishing features (birthmarks, old scar tissue, moles, etc) is then made. A handheld voice recorder or a standard examination form is normally used to record this information.
[edit] Internal examination

If not already in place, a plastic or rubber brick called a "body block" is placed under the back of the body, causing the arms and neck to fall backward whilst stretching and pushing the chest upward to make it easier to cut open. This gives the prosector, a pathologist or assistant, maximum exposure to the trunk. After this is done, the internal examination begins. The internal examination consists of inspecting the internal organs of the body for evidence of trauma or other indications of the cause of death. For the internal examination there are a number of different approaches available:

a large and deep Y-shaped incision can be made from behind each ear and running down the sides of the neck, meeting at the breastbone. This is the approach most often used in forensic autopsies so as to allow maximum exposure of the neck structures for later detailed examination. This could prove essential in cases of suspected strangulation
a T-shaped incision made from the tips of both shoulder, in a horizontal line across the region of the collar bones to meet at the sternum (breastbone) in the middle. This initial cut is used more often to produce a more aesthetic finish to the body when it is re-constituted as stitching marks will not be as apparent as with a Y-shaped incision
a single vertical cut is made from the middle of the neck (in the region of the 'adam's apple' on a male body)
In all of the above cases the cut then extends all the way down to the pubic bone (making a deviation to the left side of the navel).

Bleeding from the cuts is minimal, or non-existent, due to the fact that the pull of gravity is producing the only blood pressure at this point, related directly to the complete lack of cardiac functionality. However, in certain cases there is anecdotal evidence to prove that bleeding can be quite diffuse especially in cases of drowning.

An electric saw dubbed a "Stryker saw" after a common manufacturer of the tool, is most often used to open the chest cavity. However, in some cases, due to the large amount of dust created when the bone is cut by the saw, shears are used to open the chest cavity. It is also possible to utilise a simple scalpel blade. The prosector uses the tool to saw through the ribs on the lateral sides of the chest cavity to allow the sternum and attached ribs to be lifted as one chest plate; this is done so that the heart and lungs can be seen in situ and that the heart, in particular the pericardial sac is not damaged or disturbed from opening. A scalpel is used to remove any soft tissue that is still attached to the posterior side of the chest plate. Now the lungs and the heart are exposed. The chest plate is set aside and will be eventually replaced at the end of the autopsy.

At this stage the organs are exposed. Usually, the organs are removed in a systematic fashion. Making a decision as to what order the organs are to be removed will depend highly on the case in question. Organs can be removed invidually, in separate blocks or all together in a single block (from the torso).

One method is described here: The pericardial sac is opened to view the heart. Blood for chemical analysis may be removed from the inferior vena cava or the pulmonary veins. Before removing the heart, the pulmonary artery is opened in order to search for a blood clot. The heart can then be removed by cutting the inferior vena cava, the pulmonary veins, the aorta and pulmonary artery, and the superior vena cava. This method leaves the aortic arch intact, which will make things easier for the embalmer. The left lung is then easily accessible and can be removed by cutting the bronchus, artery, and vein at the hilum. The right lung can then be similarly removed. The abdominal organs can be removed one by one after first examining their relationships and vessels.

Some pathologists, however, prefer to remove the organs all in one "block". Then a series of cuts, along the vertebral column, are made so that the organs can be detached and pulled out in one piece for further inspection and sampling. During autopsies of infants, this method is used almost all of the time. The various organs are examined, weighed and tissue samples in the form of slices are taken. Even major blood vessels are cut open and inspected at this stage. Next the stomach and intestinal contents are examined and weighed. This could be useful to find the cause and time of death, due to the natural passage of food through the bowel during digestion. The more area empty, the longer the victim had gone without a meal before death.


A brain autopsy demonstrating signs of meningitis. The forceps (center) are retracting the dura mater (white). Underneath the dura mater are the leptomeninges, which appear to be edematous and have multiple small hemorrhagic foci.The body block that was used earlier to elevate the chest cavity is now used to elevate the head. To examine the brain, a cut is made from behind one ear, over the crown of the head, to a point behind the other ear. When the autopsy is completed, the incision can be neatly sewn up and is not noticed when the head is resting on a pillow in an open casket funeral. The scalp is pulled away from the skull in two flaps with the front flap going over the face and the rear flap over the back of the neck. The skull is then cut with an electric saw to create a "cap" that can be pulled off, exposing the brain. The brain is then observed in situ. Then the brain's connection to the spinal cord is severed, and the brain is then lifted out of the skull for further examination. If the brain needs to be preserved before being inspected, it is contained in a large container of formalin (15 percent solution of formaldehyde gas in buffered water) for at least two but preferably four weeks. This not only preserves the brain, but also makes it firmer allowing easier handling without corrupting the tissue

How could Wecht have done this without handling the body. He is lying.

[adnoid]

An autopsy involves handling and cutting

No it doesn't. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y05EmK66Gsk)

[PsychNurse;~)]

for what it's worth there are, technically, different types of autopsies. there are even psychological autopsies that are based simply on medical histories. no cutting of the body.

maybe that's the type of thing wecht was referring to?

wecht absolutely never performed anything even closely resembling an actual physical autopsy on laci and conner's remains.

cyn

[PsychNurse;~)]

maybe aw2b can clarify what she thinks wecht and lee were allowed to do when they performed their 'defense autopsy'? that might clear up this back and forth on what is really nothing more than a play on words.

cyn

[attorneywan2be]

I did - what part of LIMITED TO VISUAL INSPECTION do you not understand?

An autopsy involves handling and cutting

Do you see the PARENTHESES ...the COMMAS??.. LOL

From the doc you provided:

1. For purposes of this order, "examination" includes and is limited to a visual inspection (including photographs, video tapes, portable x-rays, or portable magnatic resonance imaging [MRI]) , an autopsy, and the removal of reasonable amounts of tissue an/or fluid samples for testing.

[Lavindar]

Do you see the PARENTHESES ...the COMMAS??.. LOL

From the doc you provided:

1. For purposes of this order, "examination" includes and is limited to a visual inspection (including photographs, video tapes, portable x-rays, or portable magnatic resonance imaging [MRI]) , an autopsy, and the removal of reasonable amounts of tissue an/or fluid samples for testing.

And it does NOT say FROM THE BODY, does it? The ME would have already taken tissues and fluids for testing - they would have to share those with Wecht. Wecht was NOT ALLOWED TO HANDLE THE BODY He was allowed to review what the ME did, not replicate it.

[PsychNurse;~)]

by basic definition an autopsy is a postmortem assessment or examination.

while a full fledged autopsy includes the type of 'exam' done by the medical examiner, this is NOT the type of autopsy done by wecht/lee.

they were allowed to view the body and all reports, etc. they were not allowed to re-open the remains that had been sutured shut after dr. peterson completed his work.

cyn

[PsychNurse;~)]

aw2b, if you were correct regarding the autopsy (which i don't believe you are), that does present an interesting thought.

both wecht and lee were present and involved in the 'autopsy', yet in lee's book he claims there was nothing he could have testified to that would have helped the defense. wonder why?

cyn

[attorneywan2be]

From the doc you provided: (Note the parentheses and the commas...lol)

1. For purposes of this order, "examination" includes and is limited to a visual inspection (including photographs, video tapes, portable x-rays, or portable magnatic resonance imaging [MRI]) , an autopsy, and the removal of reasonable amounts of tissue an/or fluid samples for testing.[/QUOTE]

[Lavindar]

From the doc you provided: (Note the parentheses and the commas...lol)

1. For purposes of this order, "examination" includes and is limited to a visual inspection (including photographs, video tapes, portable x-rays, or portable magnatic resonance imaging [MRI]) , an autopsy, and the removal of reasonable amounts of tissue an/or fluid samples for testing.[/QUOTE]

Since you are unable to understnad LIMITED TO, I will not argue with you anymore.

[attorneywan2be]

Since you are unable to understnad LIMITED TO, I will not argue with you anymore.

Likewise...since you do NOT understand the doc that you provided, I will not argue with you anymore...

[I'mSun]

their own freedom?


if they(he/she) didn't make it look like Scott LE would rule him out and then go looking for whoever really did it right?

it's not a matter of it being Scott Peterson.. it's was just him or them...

I don't know why that reason alone isn't enough of a reason to do it...:shrug:Because it just doesn't make sense. You have to look at the whole
picture, storing the bodies, taking them to the Bay, etc... it just isn't reasonable or probable.

[Miss Bootsie]

aw2b, if you were correct regarding the autopsy (which i don't believe you are), that does present an interesting thought.

both wecht and lee were present and involved in the 'autopsy', yet in lee's book he claims there was nothing he could have testified to that would have helped the defense. wonder why?

cyn

I'm quite sure it was the same with Wecht.;)

[Miss Bootsie]

The issue is, he testified at the prelim that there were NO BARABCLES on the body just on the clothing...he testified at the trial that there were barnacles on her bone...!!!!

I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make here. We know barnacles were found on the lower part of Laci Peterson's remains in the area of the femur bone.

[Miss Bootsie]

I disagree..





I think he absolutely said "there were NO barnacles"

This is a perfect example of why I sometimes get so frustrated when discussing this case.

May I ask, in your haste, did you just not read what immediately followed.

Yes, he did absolutely state "there were no barnacles", but immediately following that statement he said this.
There was
10 some barnacle on the clothing, but not on her

So the conclusion after processing all is - There were barnacles on the remains.
Right? Yes? No?

Same kind of thing with the term decomposed being used.
I don't know how anything could be more obvious.
Well, yes I can. The above.

HARRIS: Now, you had mentioned earlier a little bit about the decomposition process. I want to go through that. In this particular case, it's, from the lay person's point of view, it's fairly obvious that there has been some type of decomposition of this body.
These statements were also made during that testimony.
To make a long story short
And to put that in lay people's terms



Then we have the scientifically detailed testimony from the trial.
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.

Difficult for me to understand - stuck on one statement in the testimony.:confused:

[attorneywan2be]

This is a perfect example of why I sometimes get so frustrated when discussing this case.

May I ask, in your haste, did you just not read what immediately followed.

Yes, he did absolutely state "there were no barnacles", but immediately following that statement he said this.


So the conclusion after processing all is - There were barnacles on the remains.
Right? Yes? No?


Miss Bootsie..you get frustrated??..well, ekg is right...if you read what the discussion was about.. you wouldn't have gotten frustrated....it started out when I posted that the ME testified at the prelim that there were no barnacles ON HER BODY and that the barnacles were ONLY on her clothing...however, at the trial he testified that there were barnacles on HER BONE (FEMUR)....he changed his testimony!!!

[cookiewench]

Miss Bootsie..you get frustrated??..well, ekg is right...if you read what the discussion was about.. you wouldn't have gotten frustrated....it started out when I posted that the ME testified at the prelim that there were no barnacles ON HER BODY and that the barnacles were ONLY on her clothing...however, at the trial he testified that there were barnacles on HER BONE (FEMUR)....he changed his testimony!!!


In a long, complicated case such as this one, memory lapses and mistakes are inevitable.

He obviously (to me) forgot those barnacles but then went over his report before the trial.

The trial testimony is what really matters, and since whether the barnacles were on her clothes, her body, or both would not have affected the outcome of the prelim. hearing, it's really not a big issue.

[attorneywan2be]

In a long, complicated case such as this one, memory lapses and mistakes are inevitable.

He obviously (to me) forgot those barnacles but then went over his report before the trial.

The trial testimony is what really matters, and since whether the barnacles were on her clothes, her body, or both would not have affected the outcome of the prelim. hearing, it's really not a big issue.


The problem is, he testified that he didn't mention barnacles in his report..so why would he say there were no barnacles on her body at the prelim..then almost a year later, he testified at the trial that there were barnacles on her bone...!

Mark Geragos: You showed yesterday there were on the bone on some of the pictures. Do you remember that?
Brian Peterson: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Originally, in the report, I think that you wrote that there were no barnacles present.
Brian Peterson: I don't think I said on, look here at my autopsy report. I did not mention barnacles one way or another in the autopsy report
Mark Geragos: During your interview, did you tell one of the officers that you there were barnacles present?
Brian Peterson: I don't recall saying that.
Mark Geragos: Did you see any barnacles on any place other than the bone?
Brian Peterson: Again, I really don't have any independent recollection.

[PsychNurse;~)]

yup, dr. peterson, too, was in on the frame up of isp.

oh my god.

cyn

[TopGunner]

yup, dr. peterson, too, was in on the frame up of isp.

oh my god.

cyn



ITA PNurse. Had Peterson not agreed to being in the conspiracy with the other 400 or so people involved in this case, it prob. wouldn't have been successful. :tongue: :chicken:

[One2Snoop]

The problem is, he testified that he didn't mention barnacles in his report..so why would he say there were no barnacles on her body at the prelim..then almost a year later, he testified at the trial that there were barnacles on her bone...!

Mark Geragos: You showed yesterday there were on the bone on some of the pictures. Do you remember that?Brian Peterson: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Originally, in the report, I think that you wrote that there were no barnacles present.
Brian Peterson: I don't think I said on, look here at my autopsy report. I did not mention barnacles one way or another in the autopsy report
Mark Geragos: During your interview, did you tell one of the officers that you there were barnacles present?
Brian Peterson: I don't recall saying that.
Mark Geragos: Did you see any barnacles on any place other than the bone?
Brian Peterson: Again, I really don't have any independent recollection.

I always thought a picture spoke a thousand words, maybe in this case 1,000,000,000,000,000 - the picture is all the proof thats needed IMO.

[adnoid]

The problem is, he testified that he didn't mention barnacles in his report..so why would he say there were no barnacles on her body at the prelim..then almost a year later, he testified at the trial that there were barnacles on her bone...!

Could this strict attention to the ACTUAL WORDS of a witness also apply to Amy Krigbaum's "golfing" (vs. the conjectural "gone all day") issue? I.e. if she said she heard "golfing" we're going to hold her to that?

[frydaddy]

I always thought a picture spoke a thousand words, maybe in this case 1,000,000,000,000,000 - the picture is all the proof thats needed IMO.


Sometimes in all this debate and discussion, what matters gets lost.

Yes, Peterson said in the prelim that "there were no barnacles on the body".

In the trial, he mentions that there were no barnacles on the soft tissue. So, in the least, perhaps he overlooked the barnacles on the bones. Perhaps by body, he meant soft tissue on the torso, with limbs being separate from the body, bones different from flesh. "Barnacles" in the prelim occured twice, the question and the answer. Not like there was a big hubbub about it. It was innocuous. Let's not give anyone unfavorable to Scott any benefit of the doubt now!!!

If the photo confirms barnacles on bone and that is what he testified to, an appellate jurist will likely dismiss this as TOTALLY IRRELEVANT and will file it with the Aponte tip, the seven witness sightings, and Diane Jackson.

[Miss Bootsie]

Miss Bootsie..you get frustrated??..well, ekg is right...if you read what the discussion was about.. you wouldn't have gotten frustrated....it started out when I posted that the ME testified at the prelim that there were no barnacles ON HER BODY and that the barnacles were ONLY on her clothing...however, at the trial he testified that there were barnacles on HER BONE (FEMUR)....he changed his testimony!!!

I don't quite understand what you mean.:confused:
I replied to post # 1672 and discussion on pg. 40





Originally Posted by Lavindar
He said there were barnacles. He didn't say there were NO barnacles.

Orginally Posted by ekg
I disagree..



Originally Posted by attorneywan2be View Post
It is not my opinion...it is a fact..

His testimony at the prelim:

8 Q. Did you notice any barnacles?
9 A. There were no barnacles on the body. There was
10 some barnacle on the clothing, but not on her.

His testimony at the trial:

David Harris: Now, you are talking about this body, Miss Peterson being in a marine environment. So when you are looking at this initial general observation, was there something on the body that was giving you a strong indication she had been in a marine environment?
Brian Peterson: Well, I think the adipocere was helpful. There were barnacles on bone that was also helpful. To me, the mineralization, the stony deposits on clothing, was also an indicator.
David Harris: Now, to go back to that. One of the things that you said, barnacles on bones. Could you describe that for us?
Brian Peterson: Well, I did not see barnacles on soft tissue. But to my eye, one, I believe it was the femur, there were barnacles. I couldn't get any more specific than that. I don't really know a whole lot about barnacles. I know one when I see them, I guess. [QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ekg
I think he absolutely said "there were NO barnacles"

[Lavindar]

I don't quite understand what you mean.:confused:
My reply was to post #1672

Sorry Bootsie - but if the barnacles were on her clothing and the clothing was on her body, doesn't that make the barnacles on her body????

[attorneywan2be]

Could this strict attention to the ACTUAL WORDS of a witness also apply to Amy Krinbaum's "golfing" (vs. the conjectural "gone all day") issue? I.e. if she said she heard "golfing" we're going to hold her to that?

You're talking about 2 different issues entirely! there is no comparison..

The issue here is a witness changing his testimony from "there were no barnacles on the body" TO "there were barnacles on the bone"...the issue here goes to the credibility of the witness...as to Krigbaum..she didn't change her story, since I firmly believe that Scott didn't say "golfing", and since I also believe that Krigbaum was a credible witness, as I stated before, I theorized that she misheard him...how would that compare to the fact that Dr. Peterson changed his testimony??

What is it that you are asking? for example, I'm not stopping anyone from theorizing the reason why Dr. Peterson changed his testimony!

The only meaningful comparison that I could see..is anyone can theorize as to why Dr. Peterson changed his tesimony..

You're talking about 2 different issues..if you have a theory as to why Dr. Peterson changed his testimony..please let us know..!

[frydaddy]

So, if the mothership of this board is to be called truTV, does that mean advocates will no longer be able to post? :D

Relax advocates, hopefully you realize I'm just kidding! I just noticed the new name and the opportunity started talking in my left ear and I've got Nintendo Wii distracting my right ear and you know the drill! Sorry! :o

Where's Accordn2me dammit? Get her back in here...if she doesn't return soon, I'm a miss her so much that when she does finally come back, I'm a have a momentary problem with incontinence.

Time for a little "So You Think You Can Dance" - solongfornowgoodpeople!

[Miss Bootsie]

Sorry Bootsie - but if the barnacles were on her clothing and the clothing was on her body, doesn't that make the barnacles on her body????

I absolutely believe that means barnacles on her body.;)

[adnoid]

You're talking about 2 different issues entirely! there is no comparison...

Was I married to you once?

[attorneywan2be]

I don't quite understand the point you're trying to make here. We know barnacles were found on the lower part of Laci Peterson's remains in the area of the femur bone.

Please compare both testimonies...do you see anything different?

ME's prelim testimony: A. There were no barnacles on the body. There was
10 some barnacle on the clothing, but not on her

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

[attorneywan2be]

Was I married to you once?

LOL..that's funny!

[Miss Bootsie]

* Snipped

The issue here is a witness changing his testimony from "there were no barnacles on the body" TO "there were barnacles on the bone"...the issue here goes to the credibility of the witness...as to Krigbaum..she didn't change her story, since I firmly believe that Scott didn't say "golfing", and since I also believe that Krigbaum was a credible witness, as I stated before, I theorized that she misheard him...how would that compare to the fact that Dr. Peterson changed his testimony??

*Snipped


You can't come up with anything else on Krigbaum so she misheard Scott.

[Miss Bootsie]

Please compare both testimonies...do you see anything different?

ME's prelim testimony: A. There were no barnacles on the body. There was
10 some barnacle on the clothing, but not on her

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

AW, I truly don't understand your point.

I could better understand if there was a relevant issue here.

Dr. Peterson found barnacles on Laci Peterson's remains.

[deputydi]

AW, I truly don't understand your point.

I could better understand if there was a relevant issue here.

Dr. Peterson found barnacles on Laci Peterson's remains.
Me too. I'm trying to understand the point of this conversation. Barnacles on her bone, barnacles on her body, barnacles on her clothes -- what difference does it make where they were?

I have no doubt I'm missing an important clue here, but, for the life of me, I don't know what it is.

[attorneywan2be]

AW, I truly don't understand your point.

I could better understand if there was a relevant issue here.

Dr. Peterson found barnacles on Laci Peterson's remains.


Thanks for responding....;)

[attorneywan2be]

ME's testimony at the prelim..

2 Q. Okay. Did you ever tell Detective Grogan -- and it
3 looks like he interviewed you on Monday, April 14th, at
4 about 3:15. Is that -- I know you probably talked to a
5 number of people regarding this case. But did you ever tell
6 him that the baby was a full-term male infant with advanced
7 stages of decomposition?
8 A. That's just what I described in the report

[Miss Bootsie]

Me too. I'm trying to understand the point of this conversation. Barnacles on her bone, barnacles on her body, barnacles on her clothes -- what difference does it make where they were?

I have no doubt I'm missing an important clue here, but, for the life of me, I don't know what it is.

I don't know what it is either DD.:confused:

Dr. Peterson, I'm sure does quite a lot of autopsies.

I think Geragos had a problem with the way Dr. P. was reading from his report. Dr. P. was asked to specify when he was reading from his report or referring to what was in his report.

He was probably relying solely on recollection at the time he testified about the barnacles.

[Heyes]

So what y'all are sayin is the fact that I have barnacles on my person after a 4 month bath means that Scott was framed?
By the way is this still the homeless guy theory holding her in a tub for months or what? I must admit the homeless guy that I know runs from commitment and responsibility constantly. Trust me, keeping a dead girl in a tub for 4 months would be a HUGE commitment and responsibility! And where in the park, under the freeway or by the river could this tub be placed? It certainly wouldn't fit in his backpack.
I'm soooo confused! :D

[TopGunner]

You're talking about 2 different issues entirely! there is no comparison..

The issue here is a witness changing his testimony from "there were no barnacles on the body" TO "there were barnacles on the bone"...the issue here goes to the credibility of the witness...as to Krigbaum..she didn't change her story, since I firmly believe that Scott didn't say "golfing", and since I also believe that Krigbaum was a credible witness, as I stated before, I theorized that she misheard him...how would that compare to the fact that Dr. Peterson changed his testimony??

What is it that you are asking? for example, I'm not stopping anyone from theorizing the reason why Dr. Peterson changed his testimony!

The only meaningful comparison that I could see..is anyone can theorize as to why Dr. Peterson changed his tesimony..

You're talking about 2 different issues..if you have a theory as to why Dr. Peterson changed his testimony..please let us know..!


AW2B - I know I'm coming into this discussion a bit late, but technically you're saying Dr. Peterson lied under oath. Why do you believe he'd risk destroying his professional reputation, and being held in contempt of court? What was in it for him?

[Miss Bootsie]

ME's testimony at the prelim..

2 Q. Okay. Did you ever tell Detective Grogan -- and it
3 looks like he interviewed you on Monday, April 14th, at
4 about 3:15. Is that -- I know you probably talked to a
5 number of people regarding this case. But did you ever tell
6 him that the baby was a full-term male infant with advanced
7 stages of decomposition?
8 A. That's just what I described in the report

lol, would you expect Dr. P. at that time to sit down with Grogan and go into scientific detail as he did with the Jury?

AW, I know Conner's body was not in pristine condition.
However, that is not the point.

The break down of Conner's body was caused by his own natural enzymes where the break down of Laci's body was caused by bacteria in her body.
Conner's body never progressed to the stage of decomposition.

I believe now you are only trying to discredit Dr. P's opinion because he was trying to make a long story short.
He saved the long story for the 12 people that counted the most.;)

[Lavindar]

lol, would you expect Dr. P. at that time to sit down with Grogan and go into scientific detail as he did with the Jury?

AW, I know Conner's body was not in pristine condition.
However, that is not the point.

The break down of Conner's body was caused by his own natural enzymes where the break down of Laci's body was caused by bacteria in her body.
Conner's body never progressed to the stage of decomposition.

I believe now you are only trying to discredit Dr. P's opinion because he was trying to make a long story short.
He saved the long story for the 12 people that counted the most.;)

I found Dr. Peterson to be clear and concise in his explanations. HE made perfect sense. IT was Geragos who played the word games and tried to twist what he said

[Miss Bootsie]

lol, would you expect Dr. P. at that time to sit down with Grogan and go into scientific detail as he did with the Jury?

AW, I know Conner's body was not in pristine condition.
However, that is not the point.

The break down of Conner's body was caused by his own natural enzymes where the break down of Laci's body was caused by bacteria in her body.
Conner's body never progressed to the stage of decomposition.

I believe now you are only trying to discredit Dr. P's opinion because he was trying to make a long story short.
He saved the long story for the 12 people that counted the most.;)

I usually don't quote testimony from the prelim.
I try to go by the trial testimony.

I think this statement during Dr. Peterson's testimony supports what I tried to explain about his use of the lay person term for the condition of Conner's body.

Q. Did you make any other notations or observations about the condition of Conner Peterson?

A. Conner was decomposing, in general terms

In General Terms ;)

[Rosie_02]

Sorry Bootsie - but if the barnacles were on her clothing and the clothing was on her body, doesn't that make the barnacles on her body????

Umm.. thats exactly how I take it. It makes sense to me, what would be the difference if it was on her bones, or her cloths?? I don't get it... do you guys think that someone soaked her cloths in the bay, until barnicles grew on them, and then put them on her decomposed body before "Planting" her by the bay?? :shrug:
Im not trying to be rude, but I dont understand the big deal between the two.. but who knows, maybe im missing the point your trying to make.:confused:

[I'mSun]

Umm.. thats exactly how I take it. It makes sense to me, what would be the difference if it was on her bones, or her cloths?? I don't get it... do you guys think that someone soaked her cloths in the bay, until barnicles grew on them, and then put them on her decomposed body before "Planting" her by the bay?? :shrug:
Im not trying to be rude, but I dont understand the big deal between the two.. but who knows, maybe im missing the point your trying to make.:confused:Hi Rosie, Body, clothes... it doesn't matter to me. Most of us don't think she was "planted" in the bay, or abducted by strangers or aliens either. But, I shudder to think you have just given a few people a whole new theory as to how the barnacles got on her clothes, although I know that wasn't your intention.

[Rosie_02]

Hi Rosie, Body, clothes... it doesn't matter to me. Most of us don't think she was "planted" in the bay, or abducted by strangers or aliens either. But, I shudder to think you have just given a few people a whole new theory as to how the barnacles got on her clothes, although I know that wasn't your intention.

LMAO oh grrrreat!!
I hope your kidding with me.:lol:

[I'mSun]

LMAO oh grrrreat!!
I hope your kidding with me.:lol:

LOL!! :D :D

[One2Snoop]

LMAO oh grrrreat!!
I hope your kidding with me.:lol:

Welcome Rosie - stay tuned and lets see what tomorrow brings. ;) :read:

[PsychNurse;~)]

ME's testimony at the prelim..

2 Q. Okay. Did you ever tell Detective Grogan -- and it
3 looks like he interviewed you on Monday, April 14th, at
4 about 3:15. Is that -- I know you probably talked to a
5 number of people regarding this case. But did you ever tell
6 him that the baby was a full-term male infant with advanced
7 stages of decomposition?
8 A. That's just what I described in the report

you do know that conner was in advanced decomp INTERNALLY, right? exteriorly his body was extremely swollen and macerated.

cyn