dove
Settlin' In
Posts: 46
|
Post by dove on Jul 6, 2006 8:56:55 GMT -5
I was just a bit confused about something. I'm new here so if you've already discussed this, sorry, but i haven't read it yet.
My question is: I was reading the scott is innocent website and I was looking at pictures. There are a few pictures posted on there and they all say, Motherhood Maternity pants Lacy was found in. Now what's confusing to me is how could she have been found wearing pants? If she was wearing pants when she was found then its obvious she had Connor and someone put her pants back on.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jul 6, 2006 12:17:35 GMT -5
I was just a bit confused about something. I'm new here so if you've already discussed this, sorry, but i haven't read it yet. My question is: I was reading the Scott is innocent website and I was looking at pictures. There are a few pictures posted on there and they all say, Motherhood Maternity pants Lacy was found in. Now what's confusing to me is how could she have been found wearing pants? If she was wearing pants when she was found then its obvious she had Conner and someone put her pants back on. Just one of dozens of things the prosecution got by Geragos - unless you believe the octopus hypothesis. Look at the way the twine was tied around his body. Imagine yourself doing that to a doll. Now imagine doing it again by manipulating the doll only without ever touching the twine. And it all had to happen in about an hour. As Wecht said, "It couldn't happen in a million years".
|
|
dove
Settlin' In
Posts: 46
|
Post by dove on Jul 7, 2006 0:11:03 GMT -5
Speaking of Geragos. Why would Scott hire someone who thought he was guilty and stated so on Greta Van Sustren on April 16th 2003? [glow=red,2,300]Mark Geragos appears on On the Record With Greta Van Susteren, stating, "You'd be hard-pressed to find a prosecutor who couldn't put together an indictment, let alone a conviction" in the case. He explains why he believes Scott Peterson will eventually be proven guilty. "It would have to be the greatest of coincidences that he goes to this marina, that it just so happens that four months later a female's torso shows up, that a baby boy shows up, that it happens to be in the same area where this guy went, that this guy happens to have on his computer the currents and the tides, that he says the last time he saw her is when he left her there in the neighborhood and that he's having an affair on top of it," he explains. "You combine that all together—there's a lot of guys sitting in prison on a lot less evidence. And his defense at this point is, 'Oh, my God, somebody else must have done it and was trying to set me up by dumping the bodies into the general vicinity of where I was, and it just so happens that I had the tides and the current locations on my computer because I was going fishing anyway.' I don't think it's ever going to wash."[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jul 7, 2006 0:46:30 GMT -5
Speaking of Geragos. Why would Scott hire someone who thought he was guilty and stated so on Greta Van Susteren on April 16th 2003? Mark Geragos appears on On the Record With Greta Van Susteren, stating, "You'd be hard-pressed to find a prosecutor who couldn't put together an indictment, let alone a conviction" in the case. ... I don't think it's ever going to wash." He could have hired a dead man as his lawyer and gotten as good a result. What amazes me is that so very many lawyers don't seem to be able to analyse evidence in a logical way -- it's all just a blurry stew in their minds as it is in the minds of so many in the population. ISTM that these lawyers just learn to parrot phrases from their legal Pez dispensers without any real understanding. I hope that at some point a judge who can understand evidence gets to read this case.
|
|
dove
Settlin' In
Posts: 46
|
Post by dove on Jul 7, 2006 3:13:51 GMT -5
This is just unreal. I can't believe they could say she was found wearing those pants and not one person would question why she had pants on. How did she deliver Conner? Through her pants? They already stated that conner was full term. So he couldn't have been born on the 24th of dec. Someone has delivered this baby and put her clothes back on.
Not sure of the octupus theory happy, i'll have to read some more.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jul 7, 2006 8:37:10 GMT -5
This is just unreal. I can't believe they could say she was found wearing those pants and not one person would question why she had pants on. How did she deliver Conner? Through her pants? They already stated that conner was full term. So he couldn't have been born on the 24th of dec. Someone has delivered this baby and put her clothes back on. Not sure of the octopus theory happy, i'll have to read some more. The octopus theory is the only one that makes the prosecution's theory work: - Around April 13th, a highly intelligent octopus comes along and finds Laci's body anchored to the ocean floor with cement weights which keep her down by magic since they are too light to work according to all previous experience. Recognizing that this is a special case, the octopus slices open the uterus with the sharp edge of a shell and removes the baby. He then finds a piece of twine, knots it around the baby, wraps the excess around the baby's body, then finishes it all off with a bow. He then rushes the baby to shore, thus preventing animal feeding, clambers up out of the water and over the rock wall boulders, walks up the shore 24 feet, and deposits the baby right next to a walking track so he can be easily found, the previous $1 million search having failed. He then heads back into the water, cuts the body of Laci free from the weights, buries them so they can't be found, and then takes Laci's body to the Albany Bulb and releases it there so it can drift to shore and also be found. See how well the prosecution case works? All you need is a motivated octopus.
|
|
|
Post by artguy on Jul 7, 2006 11:54:52 GMT -5
The prosecution claimed that it was not a vaginal birth, that the fetus was released through a tear in the uterus. This was introduced through the state’s witness, Doctor Brian Peterson:
David Harris: Now, going back to, I don't want to say the big picture, but in terms of when you were all done in this particular case, you have the toxicology back, you have the DNA back, and you've identified both Conner and Laci, and what is your ultimate opinion about Laci and Conner and them being together in this marine environment? Brian Peterson: My opinion is that when Laci was deposited in the marina environment, Conner was still within Laci. And ultimately, because of the effects of environment, animal feeding and decomposition, Laci's front degraded sufficiently to allow access of the uterus to the outside world, and ultimately Conner. ______________
Geragos brought out on cross that there were other possibilities for a non-vaginal birth:
Mark Geragos: Okay. The, I'm accepting, obviously, your, deferring to your experience that you didn't see a vaginal birth, evidence of a vaginal birth? Brian Peterson: That's correct. The birth canal was closed. Mark Geragos: Okay. And what's missing is from the bellybutton up on the body of Laci, correct? Brian Peterson: Well, there are other things missing too. But certainly that was also missing. Mark Geragos: If there was an incision prior to her going into the water, and if the baby was removed prior to going into the water, and where the incision was ended up decomposing, you see that, isn't that correct? Brian Peterson: As I said earlier, there could have been a gunshot. There could have been any number of different kind of trauma. If they only affected soft tissue, and now that soft tissue is missing, we can pretty much hypothesize anything we want. I guess I couldn't say yes or no. Mark Geragos: Right. Without, I'm not trying to be morbid here. But without, there is no evidence from which we can determine what happened and how that baby got out with just hypothesizing, correct? Brian Peterson: There is some evidence. Again, the birth canal was closed. Mark Geragos: Well, I'm accepting, I'm accepting the fact, deferring to your observation, that there wasn't a vaginal delivery. Brian Peterson: I'm saying there wasn't a vaginal delivery either before or after death. Mark Geragos: Right. Brian Peterson: Okay. Mark Geragos: I'm with you there. Brian Peterson: Okay. Mark Geragos: I'm saying at some point the baby came out from this area, correct? Brian Peterson: From the top of the uterus, from the fundus. Mark Geragos: The top of the uterus and out from here, had to come out, correct? Brian Peterson: Correct. Mark Geragos: Okay. One way or another, whether it was before she was in the water or whether it was after the baby came out. Brian Peterson: The baby did come out. Mark Geragos: Okay. And there is no incision. You see nowhere, you don't have any evidence whatsoever as to where the baby came out from, do we? Brian Peterson: Oh, sure. Because we have an opening in the top of the uterus. So we know that. Mark Geragos: Internally, correct? Brian Peterson: Well, the uterus is an internal organ, and we know that Conner came out the top of the uterus. Mark Geragos: And Conner exited from somewhere on Laci's body, correct? Brian Peterson: That's correct. Mark Geragos: And if Conner had exited before he had gone into the water, and Laci was placed in the water, the decomposition would have been such that that incision would no longer be observable by you. Brian Peterson: Well, if we assume the incision was up high, then that would be true. Mark Geragos: Thank you. I have no other questions. _________________
So it’s inconclusive whether the fetus was displaced from the uterus before or after Laci entered the water.
Distaso took great liberty with the facts in evidence on his closing statement:
Remember on Laci, I forgot to tell you, there was no evidence of an incision on her uterus, or in any location where somebody had killed Laci and then tried to take the body out. So we've got this tiny little guy who we know went in the water with Laci Peterson. There's no other explanation. Like Dr. Peterson said, if he was anywhere but inside her uterus, he would have been eaten or completely decomposed. I mean it's a horrible thing to say, and I can't believe I have to stand up here and tell you folks this, but that's just the facts of the case. It's an important fact because it proves to us that Conner Peterson was inside Laci, died inside Laci, and went in the water with Laci. __________________
Geragos only lightly broached the subject on his closing argument but did manage to raise reasonable doubt as to whether or not the fetus was displaced prior to entering the water:
One of the theories he had was that there, the baby had been there in the uterus and had been protected. The problem with that, obviously, is that you don't have a placenta, you don't have an umbilical cord. And clearly that was the other thing that he said he could not rule out that baby having either been alive, or the baby having been removed and handled outside of the womb, because the umbilical cord is not there. Was that baby wrapped in some kind of plastic? Was that baby in the TARGET bag? Was that baby in the other bag that the cadaver dog alerted on to? We don't know. Most of those things were not tested. The fact of the matter is, though, that that baby, it looks like, had something that was wrapped around it that protected it, and it looks like that that rope or twine, or whatever you want to call it, was tied and it was tied with a knot and with a bow, and if that's the case, it is not Scott Peterson who did that. If that's the case, then that baby was handled outside of the womb. Obviously somebody other than Scott Peterson did that. ________________
There is reasonable doubt as to whether or not the fetus was removed from the uterus prior to or after going into the water. There is reasonable doubt as to how the twine got around the neck of the fetus. There is reasonable doubt as to whether the fetus was born alive or dead. There is clearly reasonable doubt as to how any of this necessarily incriminates Scott Peterson.
When Geragos appeared on Greta Van Susteren, it was prior to his thorough evaluation of all the facts and evidence. At that point, his opinion was based solely on the inaccurate and damaging information being disseminated by the media, largely as a result of intentionally misleading police reports. Once he – or anyone looks more closely at all of the facts in evidence, it becomes clear that the prosecutions case is based largely on assumption and prejudice, which should not be considered in reaching a determination as to the guilt of Scott Peterson.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jul 7, 2006 12:23:37 GMT -5
... There is reasonable doubt as to whether or not the fetus was removed from the uterus prior to or after going into the water. There is reasonable doubt as to how the twine got around the neck of the fetus. There is reasonable doubt as to whether the fetus was born alive or dead. There is clearly reasonable doubt as to how any of this necessarily incriminates Scott Peterson. ... No evidence was ever offered at trial that Conner was in the sea for even one moment. All of the evidence supports him being placed exactly where he was found. Devore's theory of the time of his death doesn't even pass the giggle test, and certainly not Daubert.
|
|
|
Post by artguy on Jul 7, 2006 14:25:50 GMT -5
No evidence was ever offered at trial that Conner was in the sea for even one moment. Right, in fact the evidence tends to indicate the opposite: Brian Peterson: Again, to my eye there was no evidence of feeding there, just tearing. Now, this body was very soft and it came apart quite easily, so my thinking at the time and at this point was that that tearing could have been caused by the physical action of the body being thrown up on shore. [emphasis added] “Thrown up on shore”, as in placed or dragged there by someone from land. It could not have arrived by sea without first being eaten by marine life along the way. How could a fetus, which is essentially a few pounds of baloney, how could it drift around in the ocean for several months without being consumed or at the very least showing significant signs of deterioration? It couldn’t have, and the state’s own doctor agrees: Mark Geragos: Okay. And all you'll say is that they were, at least Laci was in a marine environment, meaning she was in water, correct? Brian Peterson: Correct. Mark Geragos: Okay. Conner, as I understand what you're saying is, the difference between the way Conner looked when Conner's brought to you and the way Laci looked, there was marked differences; is that correct? Brian Peterson: That's correct. Mark Geragos: Okay. And I believe that the main thrust of your observation is that Conner had no evidence of animal feeding on him; is that correct? Brian Peterson: That's correct. Mark Geragos: And if I understand you correct, that because of Conner's size, that one would have expected, if Conner was in the water for a period of time, that Conner would have been, the animals would have fed on Conner because of his size; is that a fair statement? Brian Peterson: That's fair. So this leads us to conclude that the fetus was placed at or near where it was found within a short time of its discovery. And for that to have occurred, the fetus had to have been removed from the uterus prior to Laci going into the water. The victim’s frayed 9th rib indicates that the fetus was deliberately extracted from the body: Mark Geragos: And if you make that incision, and it's up high, it's going to be roughly in the area where, that 9th rib is frayed, is it not? Brian Peterson: Well, again is that where a Cesarean section would, happen? No, never. But, hypothetically, could you make an, incision in somebody at that level? Sure you could. Of, course, it wasn't a cut mark in the rib. It was frayed. Mark Geragos: Was frayed. And the uterus was long enough that it, looked like the uterus was up around that 9th rib, wasn't it? Brian Peterson: Correct. Mark Geragos: And that's where the frayed end was roughly at the, same spot where the 9th rib was, wasn't it, if you extended, it? Brian Peterson: Well, yeah. Where the rib became cartilage, that, would be the frayed end. Mark Geragos: Right. So we know that the, we have got in, uterus that's extended, and it's frayed, roughly the 9th rib., We have got a frayed end on the 9th rib, correct? Brian Peterson: The fundus of the uterus was frayed and friable., The end of the rib was frayed. That's what we had. Mark Geragos: Thank you. No further questions. There is no reasonable explanation for the fetus to have been found relatively unscathed by any interpretation of the prosecution’s theories.
|
|
dove
Settlin' In
Posts: 46
|
Post by dove on Jul 7, 2006 19:06:24 GMT -5
Hi Artguy, thanks for all that information. I hadn't read that part of the trial and couldn't get out of my head how in the world conner could have been born. I had no idea about her stomach and didn't even think about that possibility for some reason? Still, like you say, there's no evidence whatsover, all theory. How they could put a man on dr on theory is beyond me. But then again all i can think when i hear about this case is nobody was going to have another OJ, it didn't matter whether he was guilty or not. Does anyone know how many years it will be before a new trial?
|
|
|
Post by texasgirl on Jul 8, 2006 13:45:34 GMT -5
You would be surprised at the followers of this case who STILL believe Conner emerged from Laci in the normal way, vaginally. You would be surprised at the ignorant people who think Conner continued to grow inside Laci after she died. Gloria Allred, for example. It's amazing to me that these very important facts are so often overlooked in this case. Which explains to me why a jury of supposedly bright people could convict a man on such flimsy circumstantial evidence.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jul 8, 2006 14:27:41 GMT -5
You would be surprised at the followers of this case who STILL believe Conner emerged from Laci in the normal way, vaginally. I believe she gave birth on or around Feb 8th. You would be surprised at the ignorant people who think Conner continued to grow inside Laci after she died. Or that Laci shrank but Conner expanded in salt water. Gloria Allred, for example. Nancy Grace IIRC. It's amazing to me that these very important facts are so often overlooked in this case. Which explains to me why a jury of supposedly bright people could convict a man on such flimsy circumstantial evidence. I don't think there is any evidence that the final jury was possessed of any intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Jul 9, 2006 7:30:04 GMT -5
What I find amazing is that so many people bought into the whole "Laci's uterus protected Conner".... Laci's abraided uterus measured ZERO cm in some areas- that means the tissue was not even there-- there was nothing protective about it! People need to ask themselves, where is the placenta, where is the umbilical cord, how did Conner arrive on shore without a single bite mark or injury outside of the laceration???
It came out at trial that the ME thought the baby could have been born, and that there could have been a mother out there in distress. Did he think the mother gave birth in the Bay?
No, of course he didn't. It was only after Laci's (what was left of her) body was found that the ME was forced to reconcile the two bodies. He had no idea what happened and admitted that on the stand to Geragos.
|
|
|
Post by plove360 on Jul 10, 2006 11:06:37 GMT -5
Sorry but I dont for one single sec think that a new born baby into the ocean/bay would not have a single mark on them to suppose to be in the bay for so long. I can go into the atlantic and not come out without some kinda mark on my simply from rip currents or being pushed up on the beach and getting rubbed on the sand. With all the creatures in the water I was in once for about 10 mins and got stung by a jelly fish. Sorry that doesnt fly for me that nothing happened to Conner for him to suppose to be in the bay so long
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jul 10, 2006 12:22:37 GMT -5
Sorry but I dont for one single sec think that a new born baby into the ocean/bay would not have a single mark on them to suppose to be in the bay for so long. I can go into the atlantic and not come out without some kinda mark on my simply from rip currents or being pushed up on the beach and getting rubbed on the sand. With all the creatures in the water I was in once for about 10 mins and got stung by a jelly fish. Sorry that doesnt fly for me that nothing happened to Conner for him to suppose to be in the bay so long Not to mention going through huge boulders allegedly in a storm. I would be bashed to death if I tried that.
|
|