Geragos fails to deliver - in The Media™

[adnoid]

What are the various things Mark Geragos told the public he would show that he never did?

To start: The woman he claimed to have in a secret location that would provide the information to free Scott before the trial.

[Hey Paula]

That Laci was snatched and thrown into a van with satanists. The guy's name was Donnie and he had the symbol "666" carved on his forehead.

[TopGunner]

That this was a "trial of witnesses" and they all stood him up!:lol:

[Lavindar]

That there'd be a "Perry Mason" moment in court.

[Lavindar]

Just found this article. I know I mentioned it somewhere and it also goes to dispute that Dr. Yip would testify


LACI'S DOCTOR DISCUSSES SONOGRAM
SEPT. 4, 2003

Laci Peterson's Modesto obstetrician rebutted widely discussed reports that the
pregnant woman had a sonogram Dec. 23, shortly before authorities believe she
was killed. The revelation could shake a recently floated defense theory that
hinges on the age of Laci's unborn son, Conner, at the time she disappeared.

Despite a court-imposed gag order on the case, a leak to People magazine
last month generated hours of speculation on several TV news and talk shows.
The magazine, without citing a source, reported that an unidentified doctor
had performed an ultrasound on Peterson on Dec. 23.

Other leaks -- again, hashed out on TV -- suggested that Conner's body had
aged a few weeks beyond the size suggested by the supposed sonogram.

Dr. James Y.K. Yip confirmed Tuesday evening that he saw Peterson on
Dec. 23, but he said the visit did not include a sonogram.

"There was no ultrasound picture of the baby that day," Yip said.
"It was a routine prenatal visit for her."

Laci's husband, Scott, has been charged in the deaths of mother and son, whose
bodies were recovered in April along the eastern edge of San Francisco Bay.
Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. A preliminary hearing is set Oct. 20.

A source close to the double-murder case said Laci had a sonogram in
September,about three months before she went missing. She would have
been about five months pregnant in September.

Forensic pathologist Harry J. Bonnell of San Diego said a Dec. 23 sonogram would
have been extremely valuable for comparison with Conner's body. But experts
still might predict with some accuracy Conner's size at that point --
and beyond -- by using the September sonogram, Bonnell said.

That could be crucial to Peterson's defense, if experts determine that Conner lived
longer than Dec. 23, said former New York City medical examiner Dr. Michael Baden.
He noted that Peterson came under law enforcement scrutiny after his wife disappeared.

"The issue here is how old the baby was," Baden said. "If the baby lived, that means Laci lived also."
His comments were made before the revelation that Peterson's last sonogram was in September.

"If (a doctor) can testify that the baby grew six weeks after (Dec. 23), that gives
Scott an absolute out," Baden said. But he noted that an obstetrician's
estimate on fetal age could be wrong by several weeks.

From 32 weeks until birth fetuses typically double in weight, Baden said. There
can be wide variations in the rate of the increase during that period, making
sonograms less reliable for determining age in those cases, he said.

A more accurate method, Baden said, is X-raying bones for calcium deposits
that form as cartilage hardens into bone while the fetus develops.

Peterson's defense team X-rayed Conner's remains earlier this month
before coroner's deputies released the bodies to Laci Peterson's family.

Bonnell said either side could find experts to contradict the other.

"If you've got somebody that can throw big bucks at (some) experts,"
Bonnell said, "they'll tell you what you want to hear."

Does anyone have access to what Wecht said prior to being hired versus what he said after he was a paid member of the defense team?

[Lavindar]

Scott's Lawyers Say They'll Prove He Didn't Murder Laci
May 22, 2003
by Rita Cosby

Scott Peterson's defense team says they have found the mystery woman who can
provide information about the real killers of the California murder suspect's
8-months-pregnant wife, Laci, and their unborn child.

The sources told Fox News they're working to transport the woman to a safe location
because they fear retaliation against her if her identity is revealed.

Peterson’s lawyers have been talking for weeks about evidence they
say will prove someone else kidnapped and murdered Laci.

Now, the defense team says they are only days – if not hours – from
locating the people who they believe are responsible for the killing.

"We would not go out on such a limb if we weren't confident we could deliver,” a
defense source told Fox News. “We believe in a matter of days, the real killer
may be found and police investigators will have egg on their face."

[JustMyOpinion]

That Laci was snatched and thrown into a van with satanists. The guy's name was Donnie and he had the symbol "666" carved on his forehead.

And, IIRC, Leaks from defense team claiming there was blood in the van ( later tested & revealed to be barbque sauce) and satanic symbols on the windows ( later tested & revealed to be kiddie stickers).

[JustMyOpinion]

Does anyone have access to what Wecht said prior to being hired versus what he said after he was a paid member of the defense team?
BEFORE BEING HIRED BY DEFENSE:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/29/lkl.00.html
KING: Dr. Cyril Wecht, what's your reading, as a leading pathologist, on what we learned today?

DR. CYRIL WECHT, CORONER, FORENSIC EXPERT: Larry, I believe the opening, coming down from the right shoulder, across the right chest into the top of the right abdomen, is going to prove to be a post- mortem artifact. I believe that it's going to prove to be an injury inflicted by a propeller or a part of a boat or a floating object that ripped through that part of the body. Insofar as the plastic loops around the neck one-and-a-half times, I'd like to know more about the plastic loops, their size, their shape, their consistency, and so on. The skin beneath is uninjured. The neck organs beneath the skin are uninjured. I would like to know more from the pictures and...

KING: What preliminarily does it tell you?

WECHT: Well, it raises a lot of doubt in my mind that this was a ligature of some kind that was applied to the baby at the time of the baby's death, or at the time that the baby would have been removed from the womb. I still lean toward this being an artifact. I think it is a pick-up in some way from the water. I do not think that it was something that was placed around the neck. I can see no purpose, no reason. And there is no evidence of injury, as I've said, to the skin or the underlying organs, the structures, the bones, and cartilaginous structures in the neck. So I think that it is not evidence of an ante-mortem kind of ligature.

KING: Meaning it is not a buoyed news for the defense?

WECHT: That's the way I read this as of this time, yes.

SNIP:
KING: Dr. Wecht, can we draw anything from the implication that the baby's remains were apparently more intact than the mother's?

WECHT: Yes, Larry. I was going to comment on that, if I could, and also on this business of strangulation, and also on the report itself, if I may.

KING: Sure. Go ahead.

WECHT: Oh. We're on the air now?

KING: Yes, we're on.

WECHT: Oh, I'm sorry. First of all, I would...

KING: I'm work quick.

WECHT: ... say with regard to the report, the report that I have looks to me to be complete. So I don't know what they're talking about insofar as the release of more of the report. With regard to the strangulation...

KING: Wait a minute. You have the report?

WECHT: Yes. I have a copy of the one-sheet report that was sent to...

KING: Oh, the one sheet report. OK. Go ahead.

WECHT: With regard to strangulation, once the baby is detached from the mother's placenta, you don't have to strangle. The baby is dead. The baby's going to die -- the fetus is going to die in a matter of a couple minutes.

And with regard to the condition of the baby, this to me remains a major point. I said seven weeks ago, and I remain with that thought, that this baby, small body mass, could not have been floating free in that water for these three-and-a-half months and have remained intact to the point that it was. The sex was immediately determined, I think even by a non-physician when the baby was discovered on a Sunday night. If that baby had been lying out for all that time, the external genitalia would have sloughed off, would have been decomposed.

I believe that this baby was sequestered within the mother's uterus and did not come out as a free-floating object for several weeks, until the mother had already been in the water for a period of time.

KING: So you discount the thought of a Satanic cult and some sort of ritualistic killing?

WECHT: Yes. I do not believe that this baby was forcibly removed from the mother's womb. We'll see, when we get Laci's autopsy report, if there is a slash through her anterior abdominal wall and through the uterus. I doubt that there will be such an injury.

AFTER BEING RETAINED BY DEFENSE, AFTER ME's TESTIMONY AT PRELIMINARY HEARING:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/17/lkl.00.html
SNIP:
KING: Is this case going to be very, very tough to read?

WECHT: Well, it's a difficult case. There's no question. Dr. Brian Peterson, I think, has been honest, as I've read the testimony. He's a competent, experienced forensic pathologist. I can't comment on his testimony, except to say that he was there. He's a forensic pathologist. He's done thousands of autopsies.
There was a forensic anthropologist there, who has presumably examined many, many bodies. There are records in this case, as in other cases, of past sonograms and past gestational age estimates, and so on. And so when you look and see what these people have said, then you have the science, as has been argued by some people panel on the panel. And that means more to a jury, in the final analysis...

KING: Right. Sure.

WECHT: ... than the obviously biased words of attorneys on one side or the other.
KING: Now, we don't know yet whether you will testify. That's to be determined, right?

WECHT: Yes, to be determined.

[Heyes]

What are the various things Mark Geragos told the public he would show that he never did?

To start: The woman he claimed to have in a secret location that would provide the information to free Scott before the trial.

IIRC Mark Geragos told the public he was a defense attorney and would defend Scott Peterson. This proved to be false.

[Heyes]

BEFORE BEING HIRED BY DEFENSE:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/29/lkl.00.html
KING: Dr. Cyril Wecht, what's your reading, as a leading pathologist, on what we learned today?

DR. CYRIL WECHT, CORONER, FORENSIC EXPERT: Larry, I believe the opening, coming down from the right shoulder, across the right chest into the top of the right abdomen, is going to prove to be a post- mortem artifact. I believe that it's going to prove to be an injury inflicted by a propeller or a part of a boat or a floating object that ripped through that part of the body. Insofar as the plastic loops around the neck one-and-a-half times, I'd like to know more about the plastic loops, their size, their shape, their consistency, and so on. The skin beneath is uninjured. The neck organs beneath the skin are uninjured. I would like to know more from the pictures and...

KING: What preliminarily does it tell you?

WECHT: Well, it raises a lot of doubt in my mind that this was a ligature of some kind that was applied to the baby at the time of the baby's death, or at the time that the baby would have been removed from the womb. I still lean toward this being an artifact. I think it is a pick-up in some way from the water. I do not think that it was something that was placed around the neck. I can see no purpose, no reason. And there is no evidence of injury, as I've said, to the skin or the underlying organs, the structures, the bones, and cartilaginous structures in the neck. So I think that it is not evidence of an ante-mortem kind of ligature.

KING: Meaning it is not a buoyed news for the defense?

WECHT: That's the way I read this as of this time, yes.

SNIP:
KING: Dr. Wecht, can we draw anything from the implication that the baby's remains were apparently more intact than the mother's?

WECHT: Yes, Larry. I was going to comment on that, if I could, and also on this business of strangulation, and also on the report itself, if I may.

KING: Sure. Go ahead.

WECHT: Oh. We're on the air now?

KING: Yes, we're on.

WECHT: Oh, I'm sorry. First of all, I would...

KING: I'm work quick.

WECHT: ... say with regard to the report, the report that I have looks to me to be complete. So I don't know what they're talking about insofar as the release of more of the report. With regard to the strangulation...

KING: Wait a minute. You have the report?

WECHT: Yes. I have a copy of the one-sheet report that was sent to...

KING: Oh, the one sheet report. OK. Go ahead.

WECHT: With regard to strangulation, once the baby is detached from the mother's placenta, you don't have to strangle. The baby is dead. The baby's going to die -- the fetus is going to die in a matter of a couple minutes.

And with regard to the condition of the baby, this to me remains a major point. I said seven weeks ago, and I remain with that thought, that this baby, small body mass, could not have been floating free in that water for these three-and-a-half months and have remained intact to the point that it was. The sex was immediately determined, I think even by a non-physician when the baby was discovered on a Sunday night. If that baby had been lying out for all that time, the external genitalia would have sloughed off, would have been decomposed.

I believe that this baby was sequestered within the mother's uterus and did not come out as a free-floating object for several weeks, until the mother had already been in the water for a period of time.

KING: So you discount the thought of a Satanic cult and some sort of ritualistic killing?

WECHT: Yes. I do not believe that this baby was forcibly removed from the mother's womb. We'll see, when we get Laci's autopsy report, if there is a slash through her anterior abdominal wall and through the uterus. I doubt that there will be such an injury.

AFTER BEING RETAINED BY DEFENSE, AFTER ME's TESTIMONY AT PRELIMINARY HEARING:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/17/lkl.00.html
SNIP:
KING: Is this case going to be very, very tough to read?

WECHT: Well, it's a difficult case. There's no question. Dr. Brian Peterson, I think, has been honest, as I've read the testimony. He's a competent, experienced forensic pathologist. I can't comment on his testimony, except to say that he was there. He's a forensic pathologist. He's done thousands of autopsies.
There was a forensic anthropologist there, who has presumably examined many, many bodies. There are records in this case, as in other cases, of past sonograms and past gestational age estimates, and so on. And so when you look and see what these people have said, then you have the science, as has been argued by some people panel on the panel. And that means more to a jury, in the final analysis...

KING: Right. Sure.

WECHT: ... than the obviously biased words of attorneys on one side or the other.
KING: Now, we don't know yet whether you will testify. That's to be determined, right?

WECHT: Yes, to be determined.
Yup, give wecht a couple of bucks and he will say anything. :rolleyes:

[Miss Bootsie]

WECHT: .
Dr. Brian Peterson, I think, has been honest, as I've read the testimony. He's a competent, experienced forensic pathologist. I can't comment on his testimony, except to say that he was there. He's a forensic pathologist. He's done thousands of autopsies.

There was a forensic anthropologist there, who has presumably examined many, many bodies. There are records in this case, as in other cases, of past sonograms and past gestational age estimates, and so on.

ITA Dr. Wecht. :beer:

[Mysteri]

What are the various things Mark Geragos told the public he would show that he never did?

To start: The woman he claimed to have in a secret location that would provide the information to free Scott before the trial.

That was sensational , wasn't it ? No wonder he lives in close proximity of Hollywood ! So many blatant lies added up to him appearing terribly foolish and Scott as guilty as ever. It showed desperation to the max !!!!


imo

[Lavindar]

BEFORE BEING HIRED BY DEFENSE:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0305/29/lkl.00.html
KING: Dr. Cyril Wecht, what's your reading, as a leading pathologist, on what we learned today?

DR. CYRIL WECHT, CORONER, FORENSIC EXPERT: Larry, I believe the opening, coming down from the right shoulder, across the right chest into the top of the right abdomen, is going to prove to be a post- mortem artifact. I believe that it's going to prove to be an injury inflicted by a propeller or a part of a boat or a floating object that ripped through that part of the body. Insofar as the plastic loops around the neck one-and-a-half times, I'd like to know more about the plastic loops, their size, their shape, their consistency, and so on. The skin beneath is uninjured. The neck organs beneath the skin are uninjured. I would like to know more from the pictures and...

KING: What preliminarily does it tell you?

WECHT: Well, it raises a lot of doubt in my mind that this was a ligature of some kind that was applied to the baby at the time of the baby's death, or at the time that the baby would have been removed from the womb. I still lean toward this being an artifact. I think it is a pick-up in some way from the water. I do not think that it was something that was placed around the neck. I can see no purpose, no reason. And there is no evidence of injury, as I've said, to the skin or the underlying organs, the structures, the bones, and cartilaginous structures in the neck. So I think that it is not evidence of an ante-mortem kind of ligature.

KING: Meaning it is not a buoyed news for the defense?

WECHT: That's the way I read this as of this time, yes.

SNIP:
KING: Dr. Wecht, can we draw anything from the implication that the baby's remains were apparently more intact than the mother's?

WECHT: Yes, Larry. I was going to comment on that, if I could, and also on this business of strangulation, and also on the report itself, if I may.

KING: Sure. Go ahead.

WECHT: Oh. We're on the air now?

KING: Yes, we're on.

WECHT: Oh, I'm sorry. First of all, I would...

KING: I'm work quick.

WECHT: ... say with regard to the report, the report that I have looks to me to be complete. So I don't know what they're talking about insofar as the release of more of the report. With regard to the strangulation...

KING: Wait a minute. You have the report?

WECHT: Yes. I have a copy of the one-sheet report that was sent to...

KING: Oh, the one sheet report. OK. Go ahead.

WECHT: With regard to strangulation, once the baby is detached from the mother's placenta, you don't have to strangle. The baby is dead. The baby's going to die -- the fetus is going to die in a matter of a couple minutes.

And with regard to the condition of the baby, this to me remains a major point. I said seven weeks ago, and I remain with that thought, that this baby, small body mass, could not have been floating free in that water for these three-and-a-half months and have remained intact to the point that it was. The sex was immediately determined, I think even by a non-physician when the baby was discovered on a Sunday night. If that baby had been lying out for all that time, the external genitalia would have sloughed off, would have been decomposed.

I believe that this baby was sequestered within the mother's uterus and did not come out as a free-floating object for several weeks, until the mother had already been in the water for a period of time.

KING: So you discount the thought of a Satanic cult and some sort of ritualistic killing?

WECHT: Yes. I do not believe that this baby was forcibly removed from the mother's womb. We'll see, when we get Laci's autopsy report, if there is a slash through her anterior abdominal wall and through the uterus. I doubt that there will be such an injury.

AFTER BEING RETAINED BY DEFENSE, AFTER ME's TESTIMONY AT PRELIMINARY HEARING:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/17/lkl.00.html
SNIP:
KING: Is this case going to be very, very tough to read?

WECHT: Well, it's a difficult case. There's no question. Dr. Brian Peterson, I think, has been honest, as I've read the testimony. He's a competent, experienced forensic pathologist. I can't comment on his testimony, except to say that he was there. He's a forensic pathologist. He's done thousands of autopsies.
There was a forensic anthropologist there, who has presumably examined many, many bodies. There are records in this case, as in other cases, of past sonograms and past gestational age estimates, and so on. And so when you look and see what these people have said, then you have the science, as has been argued by some people panel on the panel. And that means more to a jury, in the final analysis...

KING: Right. Sure.

WECHT: ... than the obviously biased words of attorneys on one side or the other.
KING: Now, we don't know yet whether you will testify. That's to be determined, right?

WECHT: Yes, to be determined.

Wect did a complete about-face didn't he? I'm glad you posted this.

[deputydi]

Wect did a complete about-face didn't he? I'm glad you posted this.
He may have done a complete about-face in the media, but he still couldn't come up with the bombshell testimony that would help the defense. If he could have, he would have been called to testify and another killer may have been set free.

[Lavindar]

That Laci was snatched and thrown into a van with satanists. The guy's name was Donnie and he had the symbol "666" carved on his forehead. Before they found the Renfrows, all that the public knew is that they were looking for a brown van driven by somone known as Donny. At that time I knew a Donnie and he drove his aunt's brown van sometimes.

[Lavindar]

What are the various things Mark Geragos told the public he would show that he never did?

To start: The woman he claimed to have in a secret location that would provide the information to free Scott before the trial.

All of his red herrings which I am about to start looking up.

Let's start with a connection to Evelyn Hernandez

[Lavindar]

Peggy O'Donnell and the deletion of that information from Brocchini's reports

On 6/29 Brocchini testifies as to what was in Det Holmes report!!!!!

441) Rick Distaso: All right. Now are you aware that in December of 2002, after Laci Peterson went missing, there was a canvas of the warehouse area where Scott Peterson had his shop?
442) Allen Brocchini: Yes.
443) Rick Distaso: Now let me show you what, now, here's this report we're looking at right now, is this an interview of Peggy O'Donnell?
444) Allen Brocchini: Yes.
445) Rick Distaso: And this report says on December 30th, 2003, right?
446) Allen Brocchini: Yes.
447) Rick Distaso: At about 1438 hours I interviewed Peggy O'Donnell at her business?
448) llen Brocchini: Yes.
449) Rick Distaso: Detective Holmes wrote that he personally spoke to Peggy O'Donnell?
450) Allen Brocchini: Yes.
451) Rick Distaso: I showed her photographs of both Laci and Scott Peterson?
452) Allen Brocchini: Yes.
453) Rick Distaso: So this report was taking place eight months prior to yours?
454) Allen Brocchini: Yes.
455) Rick Distaso: She was familiar with both of them.
456) Allen Brocchini: That's what she said, yes.
457) Rick Distaso: She said she had seen Scott Peterson on one occasion when he let her business use his forklift to move some property?
458) Allen Brocchini: Yes.
459) Rick Distaso: And Peggy O'Donnell has one of the warehouses in the complex where Scott Peterson did?
460) Allen Brocchini: Yes.
461) Rick Distaso: She said Laci Peterson had come to her business and asked to use the bathroom on either 12/20 or 12/23?
462) Allen Brocchini: Yes.
463) Rick Distaso: She believes this was late afternoon, however, she could not be sure?
464) Allen Brocchini: Yes.
465) Rick Distaso: So what Peggy says is that Laci had come to her, her shop and asked to use the bathroom?
466) Allen Brocchini: Yes.
467) Rick Distaso: Was there anywhere that you saw in Detective Holmes'report that said that Laci Peterson had used the bathroom at Scott's shop?
468) Allen Brocchini: No.
469) Rick Distaso: O'Donnell said she had only talked to Scott Peterson on one occasion, right?
470) Allen Brocchini: Yes.
471) Rick Distaso: However, she believed she has seen his truck several times either late morning or late afternoon?
472) Allen Brocchini: Yes.
473) Rick Distaso: I showed her a picture of the boat, she said she had never seen the boat.
474) Allen Brocchini: Yes.
475) Rick Distaso: Okay. And to your knowledge both of these reports, yours and Detective Holmes, were discovered to the defense attorneys?
476) Allen Brocchini: Along with my notes and my dictation tape.
477) Rick Distaso: Okay. The notes of the interview, do your notes contain the information about Peggy O'Donnell and the bathroom, Laci using the bathroom?
478) Allen Brocchini: On the 23rd, yes.
479) Rick Distaso: And your dictation tape is what Mr. Geragos played in court regarding this information being omitted from your report?
480) Allen Brocchini: Yes.
481) Rick Distaso: So you retained those two documents, your notes and the dictation tape?
482) Allen Brocchini: Yes.
483) Rick Distaso: And did you provide those, that information to the defense in discovery?
484) Allen Brocchini: I provided it to the D.A.'s Office who discovered it to the defense.

[Lavindar]

Garegos's Motion for retrial says that Modesto is in the same media market as the Bay Area. Not if you have cable, it isn't. I don't know about satellite, but Comcast gets NONE of the Bay Area channels. Modesto is in the Sacramento Media market, not the Bay Area. All we get of the Bay Area are the weather reports from the Sacramento stations. In the Bay Area, they don't get Modesto weather reports. So dear Mark LIED in his motion.

[adnoid]

483) Rick Distaso: And did you provide those, that information to the defense in discovery?
484) Allen Brocchini: I provided it to the D.A.'s Office who discovered it to the defense.

Yep. Just like the whole Aponte thing - it was there.

Some feel that the prosecution should have highlighted certain things and it's a reason Scott should be set free. Putting aside how ridiculous (and contrary to law) this concept is, we must keep in mind that we have an adversarial system. If my adversary purports to give me "help" I will naturally distrust that help.

[TopGunner]

I do believe he called his client a 14k gold azzhole, and he is not.

More like 24k's ! :biggrin:

[deputydi]

Garegos's Motion for retrial says that Modesto is in the same media market as the Bay Area. Not if you have cable, it isn't. I don't know about satellite, but Comcast gets NONE of the Bay Area channels. Modesto is in the Sacramento Media market, not the Bay Area. All we get of the Bay Area are the weather reports from the Sacramento stations. In the Bay Area, they don't get Modesto weather reports. So dear Mark LIED in his motion.
Since you brought it up, I have a question. Where in the entire State of CA did he think he could move the trial? In fact, I don't think there is any place in the world that wasn't saturated with stories of Laci and Conner.

Even if he had been successful in getting it moved to LA (only because that would have been more convenient for him) Scott wasn't going to be acquitted. If he was seeing another OJ moment, he was forgetting that Scott Peterson was a fertilizer salesman -- not some celebrity who had diehard fans who refused to believe he could commit murder regardless of the evidence. Scott could have been tried in Beirut and would still have been convicted.

[Lavindar]

Since you brought it up, I have a question. Where in the entire State of CA did he think he could move the trial? In fact, I don't think there is any place in the world that wasn't saturated with stories of Laci and Conner.

Even if he had been successful in getting it moved to LA (only because that would have been more convenient for him) Scott wasn't going to be acquitted. If he was seeing another OJ moment, he was forgetting that Scott Peterson was a fertilizer salesman -- not some celebrity who had diehard fans who refused to believe he could commit murder regardless of the evidence. Scott could have been tried in Beirut and would still have been convicted.

Frankly I believe he could have gotten a fair trial in Modesto. I think people would have bent over backwards to be fair.

The only people who would have been helped by trial moving to LA were the Petersons and Garegos & Co. LA, at Best is a good 5 hour drive from Modesto and the majority of witnesses were from Modesto. 90 miles was a stretch for most, but possible.

He could have played the rush to judgment card in LA and that wouldn't play in Northern CA. How can it be a rush to judgment when he isn't arrested for 4 months?

BTW, Modesto police did NOT know where he was either. He had given his GPS truck to John. I think they located him through a phone call a day or two before they caught him.

[TopGunner]

snip: How can it be a rush to judgment when he isn't arrested for 4 months?


Excellent point Lavindar, as always. And it wasn't "rush to judgement", not that that's against the law, mind you - if anything, it was "rush to suspect", and I soooooooooooooo LAUGH when I hear that argument. When the cops SUSPECT someone, what the h*ll are they supposed to do, look at a calandar and mark a time, say 7 weeks later when it's then "acceptable" to start looking for evidence? :rolleyes:

A mother's intuition is a powerful thing: we just KNOW when our kids need us, we KNOW why their lying...and a cops intuition is JUST as powerful, the best tool they have. To ignore it would be going against everything they've been trained to do.

[I'mSun]

So dear Mark LIED in his motion.
What?? Mark Geragos lied in the courtroom??? I should be in shock! :eek:
But, I'm not. It is exactly what I expected from him. IMO, he just couldn't deliver on so many promises he made.

[enlightenme]

Frankly I believe he could have gotten a fair trial in Modesto. I think people would have bent over backwards to be fair.

The only people who would have been helped by trial moving to LA were the Petersons and Garegos & Co. LA, at Best is a good 5 hour drive from Modesto and the majority of witnesses were from Modesto. 90 miles was a stretch for most, but possible.

He could have played the rush to judgment card in LA and that wouldn't play in Northern CA. How can it be a rush to judgment when he isn't arrested for 4 months?

BTW, Modesto police did NOT know where he was either. He had given his GPS truck to John. I think they located him through a phone call a day or two before they caught him.

LE also called the Petersons and asked if they knew where he was. Of course, they said they did not. Another blatant lie by the Petersons, IMO.

[Lavindar]

Since you brought it up, I have a question. Where in the entire State of CA did he think he could move the trial? In fact, I don't think there is any place in the world that wasn't saturated with stories of Laci and Conner.

Even if he had been successful in getting it moved to LA (only because that would have been more convenient for him) Scott wasn't going to be acquitted. If he was seeing another OJ moment, he was forgetting that Scott Peterson was a fertilizer salesman -- not some celebrity who had diehard fans who refused to believe he could commit murder regardless of the evidence. Scott could have been tried in Beirut and would still have been convicted.


WHERE in the United States. I read somewhere iirc that the biggest market for the Peterson case was in Kentucky.

[Hey Paula]

That Laci was "carved like a turkey", appearing to have been done by a satanic cult Geraldo Rivera, an alleged friend of MG, first reported this, and even included other incidents of satanic rituals in the Modesto area. The Albany Bulb artists, and their drawings with inferences drawn to Laci, were mentioned.

IMO

[Miss Bootsie]

*Snipped

How can it be a rush to judgment when he isn't arrested for 4 months?

*Snipped


Funny, I have tried to figure this out myself TG.:confused:

I understand why they didn't, but I have often wished LE had waited a wee bit longer to arrest Scott after the bodies washed ashore.

I think he was on the verge of falling apart, and with a little more pressure applied, he may have talked.

[Lavindar]

Funny, I have tried to figure this out myself TG.:confused:

I understand why they didn't, but I have often wished LE had waited a wee bit longer to arrest Scott after the bodies washed ashore.

I think he was on the verge of falling apart, and with a little more pressure applied, he may have talked. I think he would have fallen apart in Mexico and we would have had to send the "Dog" in to get him out...he wouldn't have had all the support of his family surrounding him and housing him - he would have been truly alone

[Rachel Cory]

You all know my stance. But, who the hell is "Mr. R"? Mr. R was another witness in another motel room or cell somewhere that never showed his face. You all know my opinion of Mr. G., too. :cool:

[adnoid]

...But, who the hell is "Mr. R"? Mr. R was another witness in another motel room or cell somewhere that never showed his face...

Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today
Oh how I wish he'd go away.

--William Hughes Mearns, from "The Psyco-ed"

[accordn2me]

Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today
Oh how I wish he'd go away.

--William Hughes Mearns, from "The Psyco-ed":lol:


I recalled something being leaked about the twine being knotted around Conner's neck. :rolleyes:

[adnoid]

I see you are located at "Lake of Civility." You should be evicted.

Can't happen. I own the place.

[Warrior]

:lol:


I recalled something being leaked about the twine being knotted around Conner's neck. :rolleyes:


The twine was knotted around Conner's neck. There was a HARD KNOT below the big floppy bow. Obviously, like anything this knot/the twine was subject to interpretation, however if you read Pin Kyo's testimony you will find it there. If you prefer that I find the relevant testimony for you, let me know and I'll be happy to oblige.

Not sure how this relates to the topic, but there you have it.

[accordn2me]

The twine was knotted around Conner's neck. There was a HARD KNOT below the big floppy bow. Obviously, like anything this knot/the twine was subject to interpretation, however if you read Pin Kyo's testimony you will find it there. If you prefer that I find the relevant testimony for you, let me know and I'll be happy to oblige.

Not sure how this relates to the topic, but there you have it.Hey Warrior :seeya: and welcome to the forum. I see this is your first post. I do like your nic, btw. ;)

The "twine" (just one of the several ways it was described in the courtroom) is relevant to the topic because it was all over the media that there was something tied around the baby's neck and it was going to set SLP free.

Now, I've read Kyo's testimony. She was clear that the hard knot had nothing to do with the bow-like formation. If you would like to quote the part you are referring to, I will be happy to discuss it with you. However, I have a million things I need to be doing...so if I disappear....I will be back in a day or two. If you post right away....I'll be hanging around a bit longer.

[Warrior]

Hey Warrior :seeya: and welcome to the forum. I see this is your first post. I do like your nic, btw. ;)

The "twine" (just one of the several ways it was described in the courtroom) is relevant to the topic because it was all over the media that there was something tied around the baby's neck and it was going to set SLP free.

Now, I've read Kyo's testimony. She was clear that the hard knot had nothing to do with the bow-like formation. If you would like to quote the part you are referring to, I will be happy to discuss it with you. However, I have a million things I need to be doing...so if I disappear....I will be back in a day or two. If you post right away....I'll be hanging around a bit longer.

Hi thanks for the welcome and the kind words!

I'm multi-tasking at the moment and just slipped in here, but when you get back here in a 'day or two' I should have this info up for all to see, and we can go at it. ;)

I will, in the interim, agree that the knot and the bow were two seperate items and need to be treated seperately.

Have a great evening!

[adnoid]

The twine was knotted around Conner's neck. There was a HARD KNOT below the big floppy bow...

Marlene Newell was in the courtroom (http://web.archive.org/web/20040608233231/http://scottisinnocent.com/) during opening statements when the picture of Conner was shown. She does not agree:

...Not much new information, just a few tidbits here and there. The most compelling part of the presentation was seeing pictures of Laci sitting in that rocking chair, alone, at a Christmas party on the 14th while Scott is having a great time with Amber at another Christmas party in Fresno. It just made Scott look disgusting. Follow that with the taped phone conversation that Distaso played, which took place just minutes before Scott went to the New Years Eve vigil for Laci. Follow that with the pictures of baby Connor as he was when discovered, and likewise pictures of Laci. Even though Laci was in much worse shape, I expected what I saw. But, I had imagined Connor in a much different way. I was very moved by the condition of his body. And, I must say, that tape looks like it could be debris. It looks like it could have gotten first around his neck, loosely, then his arm went up or moved some way, and it got under his arm, which then would have tightened it around his neck...

[accordn2me]

Marlene Newell was in the courtroom (http://web.archive.org/web/20040608233231/http://scottisinnocent.com/) during opening statements when the picture of Conner was shown. She does not agree:So here it is referred to as "tape." Do you know if she's posting about the prelim or the actual trial? IIRC, it became "twine" during Kyo's testimony. IMO, nerves and ESL were a problem for Kyo when she was on the stand. She was a credible expert but she had problems with making herself understood. My belief is some things were "lost" in translation if you know what I mean. She used the word "tied" when it's obvious she didn't believe it was tied by human hands, for just one example.

[adnoid]

...Do you know if she's posting about the prelim or the actual trial?...

6/1/2004 would be the actual trial.

[Lavindar]

6/1/2004 would be the actual trial.
This is falso information, Warrior. Pin Kyo works at teh Department of Justice in RIPON, which is a good hour and a half from where the body was Autopsied. She wouldn't have been at the autopsy so she wouldn't have know where teh knot was on the body of Conner.

[accordn2me]

6/1/2004 would be the actual trial.Thanks, adnoid.

I wonder if MN's opinion changed about the tape/twine later on? After seeing her Kermit conclusion, it wouldn't surprise me.

[adnoid]

Thanks, adnoid.

I wonder if MN's opinion changed about the tape/twine later on? After seeing her Kermit conclusion, it wouldn't surprise me.

Here's what is significant: That photo is not available to the public. It was shown during the opening statements, and the jury was able to examine it at leisure, but nobody else has seen it since. So you have Marlene, who sees the evidence with her own eyes, say it looks like debris at the time she sees it, but later changes her mind (and therefore the "minds" of her followers) months and years later - because it helps her conclusion. She's going from her conclusion of innocence and reconstructing the evidence to be consistent with her conclusion, which is the wrong way to do it.

Now Scott's supporters all maintain the party-line "tight double knot around the neck" and won't budge - but Marlene's recollection made at the time is a stubborn fact that won't go away.

I like some of her other remarks as well. Which Geragos failed to deliver on (I like to prevent off-topic posts).

[Lavindar]

Here's what is significant: That photo is not available to the public. It was shown during the opening statements, and the jury was able to examine it at leisure, but nobody else has seen it since. So you have Marlene, who sees the evidence with her own eyes, say it looks like debris at the time she sees it, but later changes her mind (and therefore the "minds" of her followers) months and years later - because it helps her conclusion. She's going from her conclusion of innocence and reconstructing the evidence to be consistent with her conclusion, which is the wrong way to do it.

Now Scott's supporters all maintain the party-line "tight double knot around the neck" and won't budge - but Marlene's recollection made at the time is a stubborn fact that won't go away.

I like some of her other remarks as well. Which Geragos failed to deliver on (I like to prevent off-topic posts).


The testimony doesn't support the tight double knot around the neck either. Since I was not the person that posted it, I will leave it up to that person to prove their point.

[Warrior]

This is falso information, Warrior. Pin Kyo works at teh Department of Justice in RIPON, which is a good hour and a half from where the body was Autopsied. She wouldn't have been at the autopsy so she wouldn't have know where teh knot was on the body of Conner.

Hi Lavindar,
There seems to be a misunderstanding. I do not believe that I stated anything about her being at the autopsy in my post but having re-read my post, understand how it might have been misinterpreted. I was referring to the fact that there was a loose floppy bow AND a hard knot in the twine which was around Conner's neck. I'm not sure how to explain this eloquently and understandably, so please bear with me. MY understanding of her testimony is that the length of twine/tape which was found around Conner's neck/body was first looped and knotted with a hard overhand knot, the trailing outside ends of this tape/twine were then tied in a loose floppy bow further down the loose-end length. I found some of the testimony I was looking for which I am posting for your reference. There is more but this will have to suffice until I get my "a" into "g". :)
*****************************
Pin Kyo: And this is a photograph of the twine-like material, plastic material after I remove from the Ziploc bag.
David Harris: And at the bottom do we see your handwriting identifying this particular item?
Pin Kyo: That’s correct. This is the item, Rich 1. My case number, the day that I examine, with my initials.
David Harris: And looking to the left of that particular item, is there some kind of place where the -- appears to be some type of overlap or curling of the material towards the end of the left?
Pin Kyo: It's almost like a bow-like knot, but it's the very loose knot, not a very tight knot.
David Harris: Showing you -- did you take a close-up photograph of that?
Pin Kyo: Yes, I did.
David Harris: Looking at 253 E.
Pin Kyo: As you can see it's look like a bow, but the way it tie is very loosely tied.
David Harris: And did you take that knot out or the bow out at some point in time?
Pin Kyo: Yes.
David Harris: Did you have any difficulty with it?
Pin Kyo: No difficulty with that.
David Harris: Did you also try to see what the width of this type of material was?
Pin Kyo: Yes.
David Harris: Showing you 250 F (sic).
Pin Kyo: The twine-like material, when I peeled it and stretch it out, this is a photograph of that material over here, and it's approximately six inch wide.
David Harris: Showing you 250 G (sic), does this show the left end of that material in the photographs after you've taken the bow out?
Pin Kyo: That’s correct. And you can see there's a -- a knot. This is a very tight overhand knot that's left after the bow is taken out.
David Harris: And that particular knot, did it have anything to do with that bow?
Pin Kyo: No.
David Harris: Did you ever try to or attempt to take or take that knot out of the twine?
Pin Kyo: I didn't try to unknot that one because pretty tight.
David Harris: It was pretty tight?
Pin Kyo: Right.
David Harris: Showing you 250 H (sic), is this the material to the -- towards the middle section of that?
Pin Kyo: That’s correct.
David Harris: And then 250 I (sic), this goes back to that knot that you were describing for us?
Pin Kyo: That’s correct. And there are other insects, bugs in the bag also. So I just take a photograph of that also.
David Harris: Now, that particular knot, you were saying that was pretty tight. Could you tell the distinct difference in that knot and that bow that you had seen, that you had taken out?
Pin Kyo: Correct. This knot has overhand, taut, very taut. The other one you can really see where -- where the tying part is very loosely placed together.David Harris: Did you try to figure out what this material was?
Pin Kyo: I give a piece of material from this plastic to Sarah Yoshida, a criminalist at our laboratory, and she examine this piece of material to the fully at length.
David Harris: And after that -- Miss Yoshida had done the machine or the kind of chemical test of this to find out that it was the polyethylene, did you do some Internet research to try and figure out what that particular item was used for?
Pin Kyo: I -- because this look like a film type of material, so I type in polyethylene film and its use in packaging industry, but the way is I found this piece of material is twine-like material. So when I put in polyethylene twine, and through the Internet search polyethylene seine twine, and the Internet polyethylene seine, S-E-I-N (sic) twine, that is used in the fishing industry.
David Harris: Now, when you looked at this particular piece of item, Rich dash 1, did you also do the -- besides the photograph, the documentation that way, did you do the same generalized exam that you've described for us before?
Pin Kyo: Yes.
David Harris: And can you describe for us what, if anything, you found?
Pin Kyo: I -- well, when I was examining this particular piece of plastic twine-like material, I have -- I smelled that it's a musty smell. It's not like ocean smell, it's a little bit more mustier, muggier smell, and let's see...
Mark Geragos: May I ask what page you're refreshing your recollection with?
Pin Kyo: I -- okay, I'm looking at page number three on my notes.
David Harris: So that would be Bates stamp 25877.
Pin Kyo: And I stated that it's -- I observed bugs, insects, algaes and dirt debris. And I didn't observe any hair-like fibers with this particular item.
*******************
Sorry for creating a misunderstanding and I'll get back with the other testimony about this knot which I believe is relevant.

[accordn2me]

Pin Kyo: It's almost like a bow-like knot, but it's the very loose knot, not a very tight knot. You can tell just from reading the transcript that Kyo's first language is not english. She's having trouble describing this twine/tape/packing/fishing industry material. As clearly as she can make herself, she states that this "almost like a bow-like knot" has nothing to do with the very tight knot. What's significant about it? :shrug:

[Lavindar]

You can tell just from reading the transcript that Kyo's first language is not english. She's having trouble describing this twine/tape/packing/fishing industry material. As clearly as she can make herself, she states that this "almost like a bow-like knot" has nothing to do with the very tight knot. What's significant about it? :shrug:

I believe Dr. Peterson testified that the knot was behind Conner's left shoulder, not around his neck

[TopGunner]

I believe Dr. Peterson testified that the knot was behind Conner's left shoulder, not around his neck

I Lavindar, you are correct. He also stated that there was no mark left by the twine, the skin remained unharmed.

[Cadillakin]

It's always been a very odd concept.. tying up a fetus. For what purpose? So, he won't run off and call the cops?

I never have heard any of the NG's attempt to explain why a fetus would be tied up? Have they ever tried to explain it?

[Trixy]

It's always been a very odd concept.. tying up a fetus. For what purpose? So, he won't run off and call the cops?

I never have heard any of the NG's attempt to explain why a fetus would be tied up? Have they ever tried to explain it?

If they did explain it, I'm sure it made no sense what so ever. :seeya:

[TopGunner]

It's always been a very odd concept.. tying up a fetus. For what purpose? So, he won't run off and call the cops?

I never have heard any of the NG's attempt to explain why a fetus would be tied up? Have they ever tried to explain it?


Hi Caddiallakin :seeya:


Good to see you post. I don't recall any explanation given for tying up or strangulating Conner, can't think of any reason either. Maybe someone else remembers something.....? :shrug:

[Trixy]

Hi Caddiallakin :seeya:


Good to see you post. I don't recall any explanation given for tying up or strangulating Conner, can't think of any reason either. Maybe someone else remembers something.....? :shrug:

Morning to you TopGunner. :seeya: This answer must be hidden in those funny papers.

The latest outragous claim from an NG: LE are not trained in California and Scott will walk free, no retrial. :lol:

When pigs fly! :chicken:

[Miss Bootsie]

Marlene Newell was in the courtroom (http://web.archive.org/web/20040608233231/http://scottisinnocent.com/) during opening statements when the picture of Conner was shown. She does not agree:

Thinks for posting Adnoid.http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/s_thumbsup1.gif

Needless to say, this is a very interesting surprise.:eek:

[Trixy]

This is rich coming from Marlene.

SII exposes the serious flaws in the investigation -- ranging from incompetence to obstruction of justice.

:punch:

[Miss Bootsie]

Marlene Newell was in the courtroom (http://web.archive.org/web/20040608233231/http://scottisinnocent.com/) during opening statements when the picture of Conner was shown. She does not agree:



Follow that with the pictures of baby Connor as he was when discovered, and likewise pictures of Laci. Even though Laci was in much worse shape, I expected what I saw. But, I had imagined Connor in a much different way. I was very moved by the condition of his body.



I imagine the photos of the unusual condition of Conner's body was unexpected.


A brief mention should be made of maceration of infants in intrauterine death.
This is not putrefaction but rather an aseptic autolysis process. http://books.google.com/books?id=XyG3802xSdwC&pg=RA8-PA35&lpg=RA8-PA35&dq=Maceration+of+infants+in+intrauterine+deaths&output=html&sig=dR7o3T6xBPxxCMsRxWb4xAPRjbo

In obstetrics, the degenerative changes with discoloration and softening of tissues, and eventual disintegration, of a fetus retained in the uterus (a sterile and hence nonputrefactive environment) after its death.

[TopGunner]

Here's what is significant: That photo is not available to the public. It was shown during the opening statements, and the jury was able to examine it at leisure, but nobody else has seen it since. So you have Marlene, who sees the evidence with her own eyes, say it looks like debris at the time she sees it, but later changes her mind (and therefore the "minds" of her followers) months and years later - because it helps her conclusion. She's going from her conclusion of innocence and reconstructing the evidence to be consistent with her conclusion, which is the wrong way to do it.

Now Scott's supporters all maintain the party-line "tight double knot around the neck" and won't budge - but Marlene's recollection made at the time is a stubborn fact that won't go away.

I like some of her other remarks as well. Which Geragos failed to deliver on (I like to prevent off-topic posts).



Hiya Adnoid :seeya:

I just read this from Marlene's site:

But, I had imagined Connor in a much different way. I was very moved by the condition of his body. And, I must say, that tape looks like it could be debris. It looks like it could have gotten first around his neck, loosely, then his arm went up or moved some way, and it got under his arm, which then would have tightened it around his neck.

This explains a lot.

[accordn2me]

Here's what is significant: That photo is not available to the public. It was shown during the opening statements, and the jury was able to examine it at leisure, but nobody else has seen it since. So you have Marlene, who sees the evidence with her own eyes, say it looks like debris at the time she sees it, but later changes her mind (and therefore the "minds" of her followers) months and years later - because it helps her conclusion. She's going from her conclusion of innocence and reconstructing the evidence to be consistent with her conclusion, which is the wrong way to do it.

Now Scott's supporters all maintain the party-line "tight double knot around the neck" and won't budge - but Marlene's recollection made at the time is a stubborn fact that won't go away.

I like some of her other remarks as well. Which Geragos failed to deliver on (I like to prevent off-topic posts).Care to elaborate?

When you post those little blasts from the past, it really opens my eyes to how long some of you have been discussing this case. No wonder y'all are weary....and sometimes snappy...I'm talking about YOU too TG! ;) ...when NGs proclaim their far-fetched theories and opinions, or the secret papers and secret evidence will exonerate SLP.

The only expert opinions that the jury had to base their conclusions on were presented in the courtroom and the defense did not/could not present experts to refute them. Do you think the NGs believe this was incompetence on MG's part?

I have to say...I think the only place MG did deliver was in The Media...not in the courtroom where it counted. And it was not that he was incompetent...I don't think he could find experts to refute the presented evidence. The Media will print almost anything....and a lot of people will buy it, sad to say.

The twine was not twice-knotted. There was a knot....and a bow-like formation. That's it. No exonerating evidence there. :no:

[Trixy]

Me snappy? LOL

What do the NGs do with all this stuff they come up with? To this day I've never heard they actually do anything with this stuff. Just post it and hope for what? It's kinda crazy they haven't had a professional (a real one not a pretend like Marlene) look at this stuff and tell them once and for all...it won't free Scott. Do you think they would finally understand then? We tell them and it doesn't sink in.

:shrug:

[Riviera]

The NG's are entitled to their opinions. Debate the subject only. Back on topic please----> Geragos fails to deliver - in The Media

Thank you

R

[Trixy]

No one said they weren't. I just want to know how they expect this stuff to free Scott. Who is representing them...a professional?

Maybe it is MG?

:shrug:

[Trixy]

Still no answer? :shrug: