|
|
Post by Maggie on Jun 3, 2006 12:35:51 GMT -5
PWC stands for Prevent Wrongful Convictions. Several months back, and extensive analysis was done which showed that baby Conner Peterson could not have "washed ashore" where he was found. Following that analysis is the obvious question..... did Laci "wash ashore" to where she was found? From the PWC's recent newsletter: The Location and Position of Laci's Body Since Conner did not wash ashore, we know that Scott Peterson did not put a pregnant Laci into the Bay on December 24, 2002. How, then, did Laci get to where she was found? Two possibilities exist. continue reading here: www.scottisinnocent.com/Research&Analysis/evidence/scenes/isabel/wash.htm |
|
|
|
Post by artguy on Jun 21, 2006 15:00:17 GMT -5
How, then, did Laci get to where she was found? The prosecution relied heavily on a brief 10 minute window of opportunity for Laci to have disappeared, when in fact there was no direct evidence whatsoever to support such a timeframe. There are any number of possibilities that could account for Makenzie's running around without his leash at 10:18. The most logical being, the dog simply got away from her. There was testimony from several witnesses stating that it was difficult for Laci [or anyone] to maintain control of the dog; one witness said something to the effect: “the dog walks Laci, not the other way around”. I mean, it’s not like the dog was found with a note in his mouth saying: “Help - Laci’s missing!” I’ve read the transcript twice now and can not find a single shred of evidence that ties Makenzie being found with his leash on to Laci meeting with foul play. How did these two incidents become absolutely associated in time? All we know for sure is that Laci and Makenzie were not together at 10:18am, assuming the neighbor’s testimony was correct - and even that is questionable. That’s one of the problems with reaching a guilty verdict in this case – having to make so many gross assumptions, many of which are twice or three times removed from any specific facts or evidence. So how could Laci have gotten to where she was found? Almost anything could have happened. She might have been walking the dog and around 10:15 – and for whatever reason, it got away from her. Then someone confronts her some time thereafter, maybe even several hours after. Who knows? She might have been walking around alone in the park after Mackenzie got away from her for any length of time, and without the dog’s protection her and her jewelry would have made an easy target for one of the many possible suspects who were in and around the park that day. So maybe someone approaches her and she resists. Wasn’t there quite a bit of testimony regarding Laci’s aggressiveness towards transients? And she was used to having Mackenzie there to back her up. The testimony did not portray the image of Laci being a person who would just hand over all of her grandmother’s heirloom jewelry without putting up any resistance. Maybe whoever attacked her didn’t even plan on killing her; when she resisted, she may have been accidentally killed during the altercation. So you think maybe that person might panic a little and maybe hide the body somewhere, like in the back of a van until thinking of the best way of disposing of it. Less than 72 hours later, the person gets a lucky break; they hear it being broadcast all over the news that the police think this person’s husband killed her and that he was at the Berkeley Marina fishing that day. Bingo! Where do you think he’s going to put the body? Sound far fetched? Well, I submit that it is a significantly less far fetched than the prosecution’s theory, which requires complete rank speculation and leaps and bounds in rationality to assume that Scott may have been in any way even remotely involved in his wife’s disappearance. To find Scott guilty, the prosecution requires you to believe that Scott is at least four different people: 1. A master criminal, clever enough to plan and commit an elaborate murder involving multiple crime scenes, boats, vehicles, etc. without leaving behind one single shred of physical evidence; and yet, 2. A complete fool, who concocts this intricate scheme, yet can not answer a simple question about fishing; and, 3. The wonderful, nice, caring individual, as testified by everyone who knew him for his entire life; yet, 4. Such a cold hearted killer that he is able to assemble mortises and surf the net while his wife and unborn son are decomposing in his warehouse with the door open. How did Laci get to where she was found? It’s more likely that the victims were abducted by aliens and dumped in the bay than Scott pulling off this hair brained concoction created by the prosecution. |
|
|
|
Post by dotmannarino on Jun 22, 2006 22:08:56 GMT -5
|
|
