Post by AW2B on Aug 6, 2005 9:17:50 GMT -5
The jury didn't follow the law when they convicted Scott Peterson, there was no evidence he committed a crime, and the so called circumstantial evidence they keep referring to in his case, is nothing but evidence pointing to his innocence...
BTW, victim's blood..fingerprints..murder weapon..etc..are all circumstantial evidence..you can see that there was no evidence in his case.. period!!!
Key Exonerating Evidence : the mineral deposits found on Laci's pants
There was no way for those deposits to have formed whether her body was in the bottom of the bay or was floating, because those mineral deposits were found in the crotch area, that area would have been submerged at all time regardless..but in order for the mineral deposits to form, the pants would have to be submerged then exposed to air long enough to dry, this should have occurred repeatedly over a long period of time...
Why in the crotch area?? could it be urine? maybe her captives let her urinate in her pants repeatedly, and it would go thru cycles of wetting and drying..
The ME's testimony ( a prosecution witness):
94. The crotch portion of the trousers was shredded, and had been basically reduced to a number of tangled fibers. To my eye, within these fibers, were a number of round to oval stony deposits, mineral deposits. These were materials that I also saw on the x-rays. So that was actually within the fibers remaining of the pants. The front of the panties was also intact. As I said, the rear portion was missing. The front was still intact, along with the bands around the legs. And that was basically it in terms of clothing.
Then he explained the mineralization process:
21 Q. Okay. What do you mean by mineralization?
22 A. There was a material that I talked about in the 23 pants, in the fibers of the pants, and it looked like rocks.
24 They were smooth. But looked like stones basically
25 intermeshed within the fibers.
26 Q. And did you also talk about that, that there was
17503
1 some process by which you felt that that could have occurred,
2 this mineralization?
3 A. Sure. My thinking is, it may have had to do with
4 the body being alternately exposed and submerged, and maybe
5 as water and salts were deposited and then dried, that
6 material could be laid down.
7 Again, I would never claim to be a geologist. But
8 that was my thinking at table side at the time when we talked
9 about that.
10 Q. Okay. When you say that it was submerged, meaning
11 at some point underwater, at some point out of the water, or
12 at least not exposed to water, correct?
13 A. Or maybe on the surface of the water.
Conclusion per MG's closing statement:
His testimony was that you would normally expect the body to be laying with the appendages down. If that was the case, how do you explain the fact there was mineralization in the front, and the stones were in the front, unless that body was somewhere else, somewhere else
Consciousness of innocence:
Testimony of Susan Aquino:
11 A. They (2 police officers) let Scott know that there was two witnesses
12 down at the park saying that they saw walking over at the
13 walking bridge, you walk over the bridge, the walking bridge
14 or whatever.
15 Q. I'm sorry. One of the bridges down in the park?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And what did the defendant say, if anything?
18 A. Well, I kind of got excited somebody had seen her
19 and I said, well, what do you think. He says that wasn't
20 Laci. He says, she doesn't go that way.
If Scott staged the abduction and let Mckenzie loose with his leash attached, as the pros. contends..he would have said without hesitation "yeah!! that's probably her".. after all, there were 2 witnesses who claimed to have seen laci alive walking over at the walking bridge, had he killed her he would have jumped to that golden opportunity...he would have ran with it to every news media outlet...!!!
His response is an indication of CONSCIOUSNESS OF INNOCENCE loud and clear...! he was truthful, because he was seriously searching for Laci.
The Location of the Bodies:
The whole picture surrounding the bodies and his alibi----> the bodies were planted there!
That's the whole picture:
Conner had a twine around his neck, Dr Wecht who examined that twine stated that it was definitely put around his neck by someone's hands, and that it could not have been a debris in a million years..
There were no fish bite marks on either body..no evidence of chewing..no evidence of animal feeding..no evidence that the bodies were exposed to marine life..
Conner was found way beyond the jetty..there is no way a wave could have carried him over the jetty given the condition of his body..
The ME testified that the mineral deposits found on Laci's pants were the result of a repeated wetting and drying of her pants OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME...obviously, that could not have occurred if her body was in the bottom of the bay...
They could not find Laci's body in the water, after extensive search using the most sophisticated sonar equipments..they found things as small as a can of beer...
No one saw their bodies floating in the water...
Scott went out of his way to prove to the police that he went to the bay..he was looking for the witnesses who saw him there..it's one thing to tell the police he was there..it's quite another to try to prove it to the police...
Yes!!!!..the whole picture surrounding the bodies and his alibi----> the bodies were planted there!
The Boat was no Secret:
Scott paid cash for the boat because the seller requested that..he filled all the necessary documents with his real name and address, and the seller submitted those documents to the DMV, by law he had to do that within 5 days of the transaction, and Scott was fully aware of that..in addition, a witness saw Laci in the warehouse where the boat was stored, just few days before her disappearance...so the boat was no secret.
It's a TRAVESTY of JUSTICE indeed!!!
BTW, victim's blood..fingerprints..murder weapon..etc..are all circumstantial evidence..you can see that there was no evidence in his case.. period!!!
Key Exonerating Evidence : the mineral deposits found on Laci's pants
There was no way for those deposits to have formed whether her body was in the bottom of the bay or was floating, because those mineral deposits were found in the crotch area, that area would have been submerged at all time regardless..but in order for the mineral deposits to form, the pants would have to be submerged then exposed to air long enough to dry, this should have occurred repeatedly over a long period of time...
Why in the crotch area?? could it be urine? maybe her captives let her urinate in her pants repeatedly, and it would go thru cycles of wetting and drying..
The ME's testimony ( a prosecution witness):
94. The crotch portion of the trousers was shredded, and had been basically reduced to a number of tangled fibers. To my eye, within these fibers, were a number of round to oval stony deposits, mineral deposits. These were materials that I also saw on the x-rays. So that was actually within the fibers remaining of the pants. The front of the panties was also intact. As I said, the rear portion was missing. The front was still intact, along with the bands around the legs. And that was basically it in terms of clothing.
Then he explained the mineralization process:
21 Q. Okay. What do you mean by mineralization?
22 A. There was a material that I talked about in the 23 pants, in the fibers of the pants, and it looked like rocks.
24 They were smooth. But looked like stones basically
25 intermeshed within the fibers.
26 Q. And did you also talk about that, that there was
17503
1 some process by which you felt that that could have occurred,
2 this mineralization?
3 A. Sure. My thinking is, it may have had to do with
4 the body being alternately exposed and submerged, and maybe
5 as water and salts were deposited and then dried, that
6 material could be laid down.
7 Again, I would never claim to be a geologist. But
8 that was my thinking at table side at the time when we talked
9 about that.
10 Q. Okay. When you say that it was submerged, meaning
11 at some point underwater, at some point out of the water, or
12 at least not exposed to water, correct?
13 A. Or maybe on the surface of the water.
Conclusion per MG's closing statement:
His testimony was that you would normally expect the body to be laying with the appendages down. If that was the case, how do you explain the fact there was mineralization in the front, and the stones were in the front, unless that body was somewhere else, somewhere else
Consciousness of innocence:
Testimony of Susan Aquino:
11 A. They (2 police officers) let Scott know that there was two witnesses
12 down at the park saying that they saw walking over at the
13 walking bridge, you walk over the bridge, the walking bridge
14 or whatever.
15 Q. I'm sorry. One of the bridges down in the park?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And what did the defendant say, if anything?
18 A. Well, I kind of got excited somebody had seen her
19 and I said, well, what do you think. He says that wasn't
20 Laci. He says, she doesn't go that way.
If Scott staged the abduction and let Mckenzie loose with his leash attached, as the pros. contends..he would have said without hesitation "yeah!! that's probably her".. after all, there were 2 witnesses who claimed to have seen laci alive walking over at the walking bridge, had he killed her he would have jumped to that golden opportunity...he would have ran with it to every news media outlet...!!!
His response is an indication of CONSCIOUSNESS OF INNOCENCE loud and clear...! he was truthful, because he was seriously searching for Laci.
The Location of the Bodies:
The whole picture surrounding the bodies and his alibi----> the bodies were planted there!
That's the whole picture:
Conner had a twine around his neck, Dr Wecht who examined that twine stated that it was definitely put around his neck by someone's hands, and that it could not have been a debris in a million years..
There were no fish bite marks on either body..no evidence of chewing..no evidence of animal feeding..no evidence that the bodies were exposed to marine life..
Conner was found way beyond the jetty..there is no way a wave could have carried him over the jetty given the condition of his body..
The ME testified that the mineral deposits found on Laci's pants were the result of a repeated wetting and drying of her pants OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME...obviously, that could not have occurred if her body was in the bottom of the bay...
They could not find Laci's body in the water, after extensive search using the most sophisticated sonar equipments..they found things as small as a can of beer...
No one saw their bodies floating in the water...
Scott went out of his way to prove to the police that he went to the bay..he was looking for the witnesses who saw him there..it's one thing to tell the police he was there..it's quite another to try to prove it to the police...
Yes!!!!..the whole picture surrounding the bodies and his alibi----> the bodies were planted there!
The Boat was no Secret:
Scott paid cash for the boat because the seller requested that..he filled all the necessary documents with his real name and address, and the seller submitted those documents to the DMV, by law he had to do that within 5 days of the transaction, and Scott was fully aware of that..in addition, a witness saw Laci in the warehouse where the boat was stored, just few days before her disappearance...so the boat was no secret.
It's a TRAVESTY of JUSTICE indeed!!!