Was Scott Peterson Wrongfully Convicted?

[attorneywan2be]

Regardless of your stance on the issue of guilt or innocence..the defendant's right to a fair trial is the cornerstone of our justice system...we all have to ask ourselves this question: Did Scott Peterson get a fair trial?

Delucchi's Rulings:

Examples:

1-Delucchi allowed the prosecution to demonstrate to the jury that a woman Laci's size could fit in the tool box and in the boat without being seen....

This demonstration didn't replicate the conditions of the prosecutor's theory regarding the manner Laci's dead body was transported..simply because the demonstration used a live person..Delucchi denied the defense boat experiment because it didn't replicate the conditions of the event in question...this basically demonstrates Delucchi's selective application of the law..

2-Delucchi removed juror #5 (doctor/attorney) during deliberations..juror # 5 told him that there were verbal comments made to him by other jurors that made him reflect on whether or not his safety was at issue.. Delucchi didn't investigate his claim. Juror # 8, Guinasso, stated in an interview with ABC that had juror #5 stayed on the jury it would have been a hung jury.

Sources:
Defense motion for a new trial
http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter...=529820&page=1

Police Misconduct:

Examples:

1-Detective Brocchini admitted in court that he excised part of his report that indicated that a witness saw Laci at the warehouse where the boat was stored only few days before her disappearance..
2-Detective Brocchini tampered with Miguel Espidia's statement..he added a reference regarding the use of duct tape in the so called murder plan.

Source: trial transcripts.

Prosecutorial Misconduct:

Examples:

1-Prosecutors committed several discovery violations:

Quote:
Judge Delucchi: I have had this conversation with the prosecution he said at least ten times. It's getting to be vexatious it's starting to annoy me. I'm going to have to start doing something about it to ensure that you guys comply with the discovery.

Source:trial transcripts

2-Distaso misstated the evidence in his closing argument

Examples:

-Distaso told the jury that Amy Rocha testified that on the 23rd Laci brought her curling iron with her to the salon...that's false, IMO, Distaso tried to refute the defense theory by misstating Amy's testimony..

-Distaso told the jury that Susan Medina testified that the city inspector arrived at their house at 10:20 am and left at 10:30 am..that's false. IMO, he misstated her testimony because he was trying to corroborate Karen Servas's new timeline that she found the dog at 10:18 am and not at 10:30 am..

Source: trial transcripts

3-Prosecutors/police might have leaked sealed police reports to Catherine Crier..that is a violation of Scott's right to a fair trial..
This was published in a Modbee article titled : Who was book's deep throat? Author says new Peterson account based on evidence from sealed police reports..

Source : http://www.modbee.com/local/story/10...10931862c.html

Jury Misconduct:

Examples:

1- Richelle Nice ( who replaced juror #7) stated the following on Court TV chat on December 21, 2004:
"There were 11 people in there who had already deliberated on issues that they did not have to re-deliberate. Only Dennis and I had to go over those issues."

This means they totally violated the following judge's instructions, that he gave when he replaced juror #7 with the alternate "Richelle Nice" :

Judge Delucchi:
"The People and the defendant have the right to a verdict reached only after full participation of the twelve jurors who return the verdict. This right may be assured only if you begin your deliberations again from the beginning. You must, therefore, set aside and disregard all past deliberations and begin deliberating anew."


Sources:
http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_tra...rson-nice.html
Trial transcripts

2- Mary Mylett "Juror 10" stated the following in an article that was Published on December 19, 2004 by Modesto Bee, the title of the article "Linked by a Tragic Loss"

Mylett Said:
-"Every single night since July or August, every night when I go to bed, I am part of the Rocha family"

-"My nightmares were during the day (in court), and the dreams helped me heal at night."

This indicates 2 key points:

1-She was very biased towards the victim's family and identified with them.

2-She made up her mind at the beginning of the case that Scott was guilty..otherwise, why would she describe her days in court as nightmares?

She also stated:

"Wants Rocha to know that for more than six months during Scott Peterson's trial, she watched her carefully from the jury box".

According to the judge instructions, she was not supposed to be influenced by anyone's reaction or opinion on what was going on at the trial..

Source: http://www.modbee.com/reports/peters...10518507c.html

3-Jurors were discussing the case before deliberations..judge Delucchi asked juror #6 if juror #5 (Justin Falconer) commented on the anchor..juror #6 stated that THEY (in plural) were talking about anchors and boating..etc..also juror #7 told the judge that several jurors asked about the weight and the size of the anchor in the case, but he couldn't remember who those jurors were.. he also said, that on occasions, there would be a conversation going, and someone would go "shh" and everyone would stop..!!!!!!

Source: defense motion for a new trial

Defense effectiveness

Mark Geragos did a very poor job from the beginning to the end..from the jury selection process to his closing argument.

Examples:

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

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

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

Source : trial transcripts

Media Influence:

The media spread false reports about the case..they convicted Scott on a daily basis poisoning the jury pool..those reports were proved false in the court of law.

Examples:

1-Laci's blood and vomit on the mop
2-Scott refused to let the police search and demanded a search warrant..
3-Scott didn't offer the marina receipt they found it in the truck as they were searching...
4-Scott just purchased a 1/4 of a million dollars insurance policy on Laci..
5-The house smelled like bleach and the floor was wet..
6-Burglars saw Scott doing something suspicious at 3:00 am on December 24th, 2002
7-Etc..etc..etc..

Sources:

Trial transcripts
Various media reports

Conclusion: Did Scott Peterson get a fair trial? The answer is: No -----> Scott Peterson was wrongfully convicted

[Wudge]

AW2b, I hold Scott to be NG and certainly align myself with those who hold a wrongful conviction took place.

Given that the defense provided a reasonable explanation for each item of circumstantial evidence prosecutors held to be probative of pre-meditation, a wrongful conviction was, indeed, rendered.

[attorneywan2be]

I agree Wudge..what's amazing is that most of the prosecution witnesses's testimonies helped the defense more than the state, most notable is the medical examiner's testimony that Conner was a full term baby and his estimated gestational age was 9 months...yet, the jury completely ignored this important piece of exonerating evidence...

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

I agree Wudge..what's amazing is that most of the prosecution witnesses's testimonies helped the defense more than the state, most notable is the medical examiner's testimony that Conner was a full term baby and his estimated gestational age was 9 months...yet, the jury completely ignored this important piece of exonerating evidence...

I don't believe they ignored this - from my understanding and from having two children of my own - determining gestational age is not an exact science. I was given 3 different due dates with my first (spanning 6 weeks) and 2 due dates with my second which was determined by ultrasound. So even ultrasounds can obviously be wrong if I was given a different due date after each one. I'm sure many, many pregnant woman would testify to the above.

[attorneywan2be]

Originally Posted by One2Snoop

I don't believe they ignored this - from my understanding and from having two children of my own - determining gestational age is not an exact science. I was given 3 different due dates with my first (spanning 6 weeks) and 2 due dates with my second which was determined by ultrasound. So even ultrasounds can obviously be wrong if I was given a different due date after each one. I'm sure many, many pregnant woman would testify to the above.

The Medical examiner estimated Conner's age to be 9 months based on his examination of the body..that surely was not only based on Conner's size, but it was also based on the stage of his development..he considered him a full term baby..that means he was fully developed...it's utterly impossible for Conner to have been fully developed at 32 weeks gestational age...that was his estimated age when Laci disappeared..also, there is no way Laci's doctor was 6 weeks off...

[Wudge]

Originally Posted by One2Snoop

I don't believe they ignored this - from my understanding and from having two children of my own - determining gestational age is not an exact science. I was given 3 different due dates with my first (spanning 6 weeks) and 2 due dates with my second which was determined by ultrasound. So even ultrasounds can obviously be wrong if I was given a different due date after each one. I'm sure many, many pregnant woman would testify to the above.

Estimating gestational age is not an exact science. That's the problem with the testimony from the State's expecrt, Dr. Devore. He represented his finding to a precision range beyond what's recognized and practiced within the medical profession.

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

The Medical examiner estimated Conner's age to be 9 months based on his examination of the body..that surely was not only based on Conner's size, but it was also based on the stage of his development..he considered him a full term baby..that means he was fully developed...it's utterly impossible for Conner to have been fully developed at 32 weeks gestational age...that was his estimated age when Laci disappeared..also, there is no way Laci's doctor was 6 weeks off...

My doctor was 6 weeks off. Doctor's aren't god and they do make mistakes particularly when it comes to the gestational age of a baby. For all we know, Conner could've just been a big baby to begin with. I'm sure you've taken that into consideration?

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by One2Snoop

My doctor was 6 weeks off. Doctor's aren't god and they do make mistakes particularly when it comes to the gestational age of a baby. For all we know, Conner could've just been a big baby to begin with. I'm sure you've taken that into consideration?

One2Snoop, if you don't mind me asking - what was your due date based on (the one that was 6 weeks off)?

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by One2Snoop

My doctor was 6 weeks off. Doctor's aren't god and they do make mistakes particularly when it comes to the gestational age of a baby. For all we know, Conner could've just been a big baby to begin with. I'm sure you've taken that into consideration?

Actually, the facts indicate just the opposite - that Conner was actually a small baby. The most accurate ultrasound (for determining EDC) for any pregnant woman is the first ultrasound. That is because that in the first trimester - all babies develop at the same rate. It is not until the second half of the pregnancy that genes and other hereditary factors kick in - and growth rates either slow or speed up. Conner's development at Laci's first ultrasound coincided with her first due date calculation - which was based on her last menstrual period. Then later, when she had her second ultrasound - the doctor notated a possible due date, six days later than the first - which actually indicates that Conner was either actually younger than they anticipated - or the more likely - that he was simply a small baby. Because the earlier ultrasound is typically more accurate - Laci's ob-gyn did not officially change her EDC (more commonly known as due date).

[attorneywan2be]

Originally Posted by One2Snoop

My doctor was 6 weeks off. Doctor's aren't god and they do make mistakes particularly when it comes to the gestational age of a baby. For all we know, Conner could've just been a big baby to begin with. I'm sure you've taken that into consideration?

BTW, the jury are not allowed to take into consideration their own experience as to a certain issue, they should only consider the evidence presented in court..there was no evidence presented that due date could be off by 6 weeks..they should have accepted that Conner was 32 weeks at the time of Laci's disappearance ..since the ME stated that Conner was a full term baby, 9 months old, they should have found Scott "not guilty"

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

One2Snoop, if you don't mind me asking - what was your due date based on (the one that was 6 weeks off)?

Due date given was mid April - baby was born very early March. She was full term but small - 5lbs. From the records I kept I knew that April was way off. I hope this answers your question?

And when I said Conner could've been a big baby - I'm fully aware that a majority of the growth occurs in the latter part of the pregnancy - she was almost 8 months pregnant correct? I remember thats about the time I blew up like a balloon. (sorry not a technical term but thats what I felt like) The pictures I saw of Laci pregnant reminded me of a friend of mine - almost the same size as Laci - and she had 10-14 lb babies (with no gestational diabetes involved) Ouch!

Anyhow, I just don't buy that Conner was full term when his body was found unless science can somehow determine he continued to grow inside Laci's body after her death. I just don't think thats possible unless she were kept on life support somehow.

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by One2Snoop

Due date given was mid April - baby was born very early March. She was full term but small - 5lbs. From the records I kept I knew that April was way off. I hope this answers your question?

And when I said Conner could've been a big baby - I'm fully aware that a majority of the growth occurs in the latter part of the pregnancy - she was almost 8 months pregnant correct? I remember thats about the time I blew up like a balloon. (sorry not a technical term but thats what I felt like) The pictures I saw of Laci pregnant reminded me of a friend of mine - almost the same size as Laci - and she had 10-14 lb babies (with no gestational diabetes involved) Ouch!

Anyhow, I just don't buy that Conner was full term when his body was found unless science can somehow determine he continued to grow inside Laci's body after her death. I just don't think thats possible unless she were kept on life support somehow.

I know exactly what you're saying - I felt like a balloon myself!! :-)

I wasn't saying the majority of the growth is in the latter part of the pregnancy. I was saying that it is only possible to determine whether a baby is going to be small or large for it's age in the second half of the pregnancy (i.e., all babies at 5 weeks gestation are the same size - however not all babies at 20 weeks are the same size). I was referring to your suggestion that it was possible that Conner was a big baby for his age - I was saying the facts suggest he was in fact a small baby for his age - which makes his measurements at 32 weeks gestation (according to the prosecution) make less sense.

I think what Conner's size suggests, for some, is that Laci did not die on December 24th - which exonerates Scott Peterson.

[One2Snoop]

According to this the pathologists weren't in agreement as to the gestational age of the baby... Just because Geragos was able to get the medical examiner to say "correct" to "nobody estimated gestational age at 32 weeks" we should keep in mind the word "estimated" was used. Another analysis estimated 33-38 weeks. 33 weeks is pretty close to 32. I would tend to hang onto the 33 or 34 for that matter instead of the 38 since that was a much closer estimate.

How do you explain the massive decay to Laci's body but not Conner's other than the explanation given below? I don't recall but did the bag that was found near Conner's body show any DNA evidence that he had been inside it?

snip

But Dr. Brian Peterson, no relation to the couple, told the judge that the condition of the bodies indicated Laci Peterson was dumped into the bay still carrying her child.

The pathologist said that some time later, after weeks and perhaps months of massive decay to Laci Peterson's body, the child's remains eventually separated from her womb.
The remains of the fetus washed onto the shore of San Francisco Bay April 13 and Laci Peterson's the following day.

Dr. Peterson testified that the mother-to-be's remains were so badly decomposed that he could not determine how she was killed and could not offer a time of death more precise than "some months" before she was discovered.

Her head, forearms, hands, lower legs and most of her internal organs were missing. The fetus, on the other hand, showed signs of internal decomposition, but its skin was not missing or marred to the degree that Laci Peterson's was.
The doctor said he concluded the child's remains were less decayed because he was protected by his mother's uterus.

"With time, tidal action and animal feeding the uterus wore away and at that time, the fetus was released," said the medical examiner.[/color]

snip

The defense also grilled the pathologist about the age of the fetus. Laci Peterson disappeared when she was about 32 weeks pregnant. The pathologist said the fetus was full term and another analysis concluded the child was between 33 and 38 months.
"Nobody estimated gestational age at 32 weeks," pressed Geragos.

"Correct," the pathologist said.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/111703_ctv.html

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by One2Snoop

According to this the pathologists weren't in agreement as to the gestational age of the baby... Just because Geragos was able to get the medical examiner to say "correct" to "nobody estimated gestational age at 32 weeks" we should keep in mind the word "estimated" was used. Another analysis estimated 33-38 weeks. 33 weeks is pretty close to 32. I would tend to hang onto the 33 or 34 for that matter instead of the 38 since that was a much closer estimate.

How do you explain the massive decay to Laci's body but not Conner's other than the explanation given below? I don't recall but did the bag that was found near Conner's body show any DNA evidence that he had been inside it?


http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/111703_ctv.html

I don't think there is another explanation for Conner's lack of decomposition needed to support the theory that Laci lived beyond December 24th. Laci could have been kept alive until some time in January and then put into the bay.

Laci actually was 33 weeks pregnant on December 24th according to her medical chart and her original EDC. There was testimony that the 32 on her chart should have read 32 - 6 on the 23rd - meaning 32 weeks and 6 days - which would have made her 33 weeks on the 24th. However, I'm assuming that the range given - 33 - 38 weeks by the forensic anthropologist means - 33 weeks if Conner was a big baby - 38 weeks if Conner was a small baby. But Conner being a big baby at 33 weeks is NOT supported by the measurements taken at the second ultrasound. The doctor notated a later EDC because Conner was smaller than expected.

[Beebee]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

I know exactly what you're saying - I felt like a balloon myself!! :-)

- I was saying the facts suggest he was in fact a small baby for his age - which makes his measurements at 32 weeks gestation (according to the prosecution) make less sense.

I think what Conner's size suggests, for some, is that Laci did not die on December 24th - which exonerates Scott Peterson.

I never thought about it from that point of view but you are right. It is suggestive that Conner was in fact small for his age. That wouldn't be surprising either as Scott and Laci are on the small side themselves.

[Invrdv8]

Originally Posted by hedidit

No, the verdict was righ on. Attorneywannabe, can't you discuss the case without copying and pasting altered transcripts from that sorry site sii?

You have stated several times that the transcripts on SII have been altered. Why don't you give us a few examples? Maybe you should do some "copying and pasting" to document your accusations. I think Attorneywan2be is doing a very good job of supplying documentation to substantiate his/her comments. Rather than ridicule maybe you should do the same.

[TuscanDreams]

Hedidit,

Hello and welcome to the forum. I'd like to ask a favor, could you please take a breath and then consider discussing the facts and not the posters? I understand that this case incites passion, a woman and her baby are dead. Let's focus on the facts and discuss the case material, ok?

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter, I look forward to seeing your posts.

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by hedidit

No, the verdict was righ on. Attorneywannabe, can't you discuss the case without copying and pasting altered transcripts from that sorry site sii?

Do you have another transcript site? I'm a relative newbie to the case in so far as I haven't really delved into testimony, interview, pics and such. I'm finding a lot of information on the sii site. FYI, everything I've read so far is not favorable to the defense.

[triipn]

I have no idea whether he did or didn't do this crime but I will say its very scary to know that you can be convicted and sentenced to death by Prosecutors that can present NO real evidence against you, NONE! Anyone that thinks this trial was fair needs to be put in the same situation and see if they think it was far for them. You need to PROVE someones guilt, not just assume it.

[attorneywan2be]

Originally Posted by triipn

I have no idea whether he did or didn't do this crime but I will say its very scary to know that you can be convicted and sentenced to death by Prosecutors that can present NO real evidence against you, NONE! Anyone that thinks this trial was fair needs to be put in the same situation and see if they think it was far for them. You need to PROVE someones guilt, not just assume it.

I agree...

This whole case was based on imagination, total speculation!!

They told the jury he killed her in the house, but there was no evidence a murder has ever occurred there.

They told the jury he put her in the tool box, but there was no evidence her body was ever there.

They told the jury he put her in the truck, but there was no evidence her body was ever there.

They told the jury he dumped her in the bay, but there was no evidence her body was ever there, in the water, no fish bite marks on her body, after extensive search they never found her body in the water in the bay, no one saw her body floating, there was no sign of animal feeding on Conner's body, even if he was in her uterus, there was an opening at the top (the fundus), so he would have been exposed to the elements and marine life, the medical examiner ( a prosecution witness) testified that the mineral deposits found on her pants were the result of repeated wetting and drying of her pants over a long period of time, how could that have occurred at the bottom of the bay?

This is a TRAVESTY of JUSTICE...

IMO

[TuscanDreams]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

I agree...

This whole case was based on imagination, total speculation!!

They told the jury he killed her in the house, but there was no evidence a murder has ever occurred there.

They told the jury he put her in the tool box, but there was no evidence her body was ever there.

They told the jury he put her in the truck, but there was no evidence her body was ever there.
IMO

Would you agree that if Laci was manually strangled that there would be no forensic evidence, such as blood, at the scene?

[enlightenme]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

I agree...

This whole case was based on imagination, total speculation!!

They told the jury he killed her in the house, but there was no evidence a murder has ever occurred there.

They told the jury he put her in the tool box, but there was no evidence her body was ever there.

They told the jury he put her in the truck, but there was no evidence her body was ever there.

They told the jury he dumped her in the bay, but there was no evidence her body was ever there, in the water, no fish bite marks on her body, after extensive search they never found her body in the water in the bay, no one saw her body floating, there was no sign of animal feeding on Conner's body, even if he was in her uterus, there was an opening at the top (the fundus), so he would have been exposed to the elements and marine life, the medical examiner ( a prosecution witness) testified that the mineral deposits found on her pants were the result of repeated wetting and drying of her pants over a long period of time, how could that have occurred at the bottom of the bay?

This is a TRAVESTY of JUSTICE...

IMO

There were barnacles on Laci's body. There was testimony that she was in the water 3 to 6 months.

The frayed opening at the top of Laci's uterus (the fundus) was probably finally opened up when her body was dislodged and floated to the surface during the 2 day storm. Before that it was thin, but not open to the elements, until Conner broke through it and was washed ashore.

I'm sorry, I just do not see any defense attorney trying to "float" the idea that the bodies were placed on the shore, 4 months later, a mile apart, after a storm.

[Wudge]

Originally Posted by TuscanDreams

Would you agree that if Laci was manually strangled that there would be no forensic evidence, such as blood, at the scene?

A lack of evidence is not evidence prosecutors can use. The defense can use such facts, because, at a bare minimum, they support reasonable doubt.

[enlightenme]

Originally Posted by Wudge

A lack of evidence is not evidence prosecutors can use. The defense can use such facts, because, at a bare minimum, they support reasonable doubt.

Strangulation seems to be a very popular way to kill women. I hear it all the time. Hundreds of cases.

Not very often do you hear of a man being strangled. I'm thinking of one case recently where a woman strangled the man that her ex-husband sent to kill her. I think that was in Oregon, IIRC.

Many cases are based on CE only, with little or NO forensic or direct evidence. CE carries the same weight as direct evidence.

[Invrdv8]

Originally Posted by TuscanDreams

Would you agree that if Laci was manually strangled that there would be no forensic evidence, such as blood, at the scene?

How about knocking her unconscious, placing her on maybe a tarp , then strangling her. The tarp would prevent her bodily fluids upon death from being detected in the house. Didn't they find a tarp with gasoline on it? Wouldn't the gasoline destroy any forensic evidence?

[TuscanDreams]

Originally Posted by Wudge

A lack of evidence is not evidence prosecutors can use. The defense can use such facts, because, at a bare minimum, they support reasonable doubt.

In my experience, I've had clients convicted of murder after they smothered or strangled their victim. Normally, the teeth leave a mark on inside the inner lips if a smothering occurred. If a strangulation occurs, tiny little veins in the eyes break, it's called pectial (can't spell it) hemorraging and the hyboid bone breaks.

I'm not sure that I agree that only the defense can use this type of case material, do you have more information on that?

[attorneywan2be]

Originally Posted by TuscanDreams

Would you agree that if Laci was manually strangled that there would be no forensic evidence, such as blood, at the scene?

Absolutely not...!!!

Quote:

DR. HENRY LEE, FORENSIC EXPERT: Well, when I heard the verdict, it was a surprise, too. As I say before, if the jury use compassion (UNINTELLIGIBLE) they will go to a conviction. If the jury look at the physical evidence, use logic, they are probably going to acquit him. And it looks like, you know, the defense did not really use physical evidence to prove otherwise.

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

KING: If there were smothering, would there have been evidence?

LEE: Depends on -- sometime we find saliva, large amount of saliva, nasal secretion, mixed with small amount of blood on the pillow. Also, we usually can find some urine, fecal material, body fluid on the bed sheet and the quilt. Don't forget, she is pregnant. Late stage of pregnant. In theory, you should find some evidence, which did not find.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...12/lkl.01.html

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by triipn

I have no idea whether he did or didn't do this crime but I will say its very scary to know that you can be convicted and sentenced to death by Prosecutors that can present NO real evidence against you, NONE! Anyone that thinks this trial was fair needs to be put in the same situation and see if they think it was far for them. You need to PROVE someones guilt, not just assume it.

Welcome to the board Triipn!!!!

[thinkaboutit]

To everyone who believes Scott strangled or smothered Laci - what is your opinion on how her ribs were broken? Which according to the forensic anthropologist who testified, the breaks were peri-mortem - meaning at or around the time of death? And it was her 5th and 6th rib - which would have been under her arm - just below the arm pit area. I always found it interesting that the prosecution ignored this fact.

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by earth goddess

270) Mark Geragos: Scott was there, and then right over here was Laci?
271) Amy Rocha: Yes.
272) Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, when you were, you said you were helping her style her hair. Is that something called a fun flip?
273) Amy Rocha: Well, we did her hair flipped out, yes.
274) Mark Geragos: Okay. And you were showing her how to take a,
275) Amy Rocha: Curling iron.
276) Mark Geragos: curling iron?
277) Amy Rocha: And flip it out.

So, it appears that the prosecution did NOT lie about the curling iron, doesn't it

They were at a salon - plenty of curling irons there. It does not say anywhere in Amy's testimony that Laci brought her curling iron with her to the salon. In fact the idea is really kind of silly.

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

To everyone who believes Scott strangled or smothered Laci - what is your opinion on how her ribs were broken? Which according to the forensic anthropologist who testified, the breaks were peri-mortem - meaning at or around the time of death? And it was her 5th and 6th rib - which would have been under her arm - just below the arm pit area. I always found it interesting that the prosecution ignored this fact.

Yes. It is interesting if the prosecution ignored that...especially with the FA's peri-mortem opinion. From experience, if someone grabs you from behind, under your arms, locks their arms around you, lifts you off the ground and squeezes hard, you have a couple of minutes before you pass out.....and it could probably break your 5th and 6th ribs.

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by earth goddess

Not really. Laci would be doing the hair with her own curling iron, not a professional cosmetologist's curling iron. She would want to be able to do it with her own equipment.

I am not sure of the legality of using someone else's equipment anyway.

I'm not sure of the legality of it either - but the real point is - Distaso said Amy testified that Laci brought her curling iron to the salon - but Amy testified to no such thing.

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

Yes. It is interesting if the prosecution ignored that...especially with the FA's peri-mortem opinion. From experience, if someone grabs you from behind, under your arms, locks their arms around you, lifts you off the ground and squeezes hard, you have a couple of minutes before you pass out.....and it could probably break your 5th and 6th ribs.

I hope you don't mind me asking - what experience is that? I can't imagine breaking a young, healthy woman's ribs like that.

In any case - wouldn't she have fought? Wouldn't Scott have had scratches on his hands, face?

[Beebee]

Originally Posted by earth goddess

Not really. Laci would be doing the hair with her own curling iron, not a professional cosmetologist's curling iron. She would want to be able to do it with her own equipment.

I am not sure of the legality of using someone else's equipment anyway.

I'm just curious, have you ever taken your own curling iron to a salon? Do you know anyone who has? In all my visits to the salon, I have never seen somebody bring their own curling iron, nor do I know anyone who has. "Their own equipment" A curling iron is a culing iron.

[Wudge]

Originally Posted by TuscanDreams

In my experience, I've had clients convicted of murder after they smothered or strangled their victim. Normally, the teeth leave a mark on inside the inner lips if a smothering occurred. If a strangulation occurs, tiny little veins in the eyes break, it's called pectial (can't spell it) hemorraging and the hyboid bone breaks.

I'm not sure that I agree that only the defense can use this type of case material, do you have more information on that?

Tuscan, in criminal trials, prosecutors are not required to provide an absence of evidence. Prosecutors are required to provide "evidence" that proves the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

You are talking about a situation akin to a prosecutor standing up and claiming: I have no forensic evidence. So I'm asking the Court to tell the jury we must assume that the defendant either destroyed the evidence that should be there or they were too smart to leave behind any forensic evidence that I could use to prove the charge against the defendant. Therfore, I am asking the Court to allow the case to proceed without evidence.

To so request the Court's indulgence would be to try and invoke the most unimaginable kind of circular logic into our system of jurisprudence.

[Wudge]

Originally Posted by earth goddess

Not really. Laci would be doing the hair with her own curling iron, not a professional cosmetologist's curling iron. She would want to be able to do it with her own equipment.

I am not sure of the legality of using someone else's equipment anyway.

What Distaso told the jury about the curling iron just before he ended his rebuttal argument was a boldfaced lie.

Quoting Distaso

"What the defense didn't tell you -- and my guess is that they
just simply forgot. But what they didn't tell you is, Amy Rocha testified that
when Laci went to the salon that night, she brought her curling iron with her.
So we know without any doubt that Laci Peterson, whether Margarita put the curling iron away or not, we know she went back to it that day, because she took it to the salon at 5:45 in the afternoon."

100% lie.

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

I hope you don't mind me asking - what experience is that? I can't imagine breaking a young, healthy woman's ribs like that.

In any case - wouldn't she have fought? Wouldn't Scott have had scratches on his hands, face?

nawww....you can ask me anything...

i was in a rather violent relationship with my husband (years ago, thankfully). he had just told me he had an affair with the next door neighbor. i was storming out to confront her when he grabbed me from behind as i described. i don't know what a pregnant Laci would have done but i fought while i was conscious. my husband did not sustain scratches....bruises to his shins...IIRC...it was over rather quickly....when i came to...my ribs were not broken but i thought they were....

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

nawww....you can ask me anything...

i was in a rather violent relationship with my husband (years ago, thankfully). he had just told me he had an affair with the next door neighbor. i was storming out to confront her when he grabbed me from behind as i described. i don't know what a pregnant Laci would have done but i fought while i was conscious. my husband did not sustain scratches....bruises to his shins...IIRC...it was over rather quickly....when i came to...my ribs were not broken but i thought they were....

Thanks for sharing.

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by Wudge

What Distaso told the jury about the curling iron just before he ended his rebuttal argument was a boldfaced lie.

Quoting Distaso

"What the defense didn't tell you -- and my guess is that they
just simply forgot. But what they didn't tell you is, Amy Rocha testified that
when Laci went to the salon that night, she brought her curling iron with her.
So we know without any doubt that Laci Peterson, whether Margarita put the curling iron away or not, we know she went back to it that day, because she took it to the salon at 5:45 in the afternoon."

100% lie.

This seems like such a non-issue in my opinion. I don't see that the Curling Iron issue itself really establishes anything. Did it have anything to do with Laci's death? The only point I see regarding this conversation is it placed Laci at the Salon to help establish a timeline for her last known whereabouts.

[Wudge]

Originally Posted by One2Snoop

This seems like such a non-issue in my opinion. I don't see that the Curling Iron issue itself really establishes anything. Did it have anything to do with Laci's death? The only point I see regarding this conversation is it placed Laci at the Salon to help establish a timeline for her last known whereabouts.

The curling iron is evidence that Laci was alive on 12/24. As are the web site searches at 8:44AM on 12/24 for a a gap scarf and sunflower motif umbrella stand.

If Laci was alive that morning, at the very least, her being alive at that time works heavily against the State's theory that this was a long thought out premeditated murder by Scott. Because its ridiculous to think that a plan is executed that left behind absolutely no forensic evidence or scent anywhere, yet the murderer was so stupid that they hsd to carry a body out to their truck in broad daylight when they could have transferred it to the truck under the cover of darkness.