|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Aug 29, 2006 12:40:39 GMT -5
New life to dead casesBy Kim Lyons
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, August 28, 2006QUOTE: Laci Peterson Wecht says the decomposition of the corpses of Peterson and her fetus frustrated his attempts at determining the causes of death. The body of the 27-year-old woman, eight months pregnant at the time of her death, was found in the San Francisco Bay in April 2003, after she had gone missing shortly before Christmas 2002. "With no head, neck, arms and all the internal organs gone except the uterus," determining the exact cause of death was not possible, Wecht said. A gash on the fetus could have been caused by any number of things, he said, but was the likely cause of death. Scott Peterson was convicted in 2004 of killing his wife and dumping her body, and causing the death of the fetus, a boy whom the couple planned to name Conner. He has been sentenced to die by lethal injection.
|
|
|
|
Post by legallybrunette on Aug 29, 2006 17:44:51 GMT -5
Hmm, how does that tie in with all that was said about SP smothering LP ??
|
|
|
|
Post by looking4justice on Aug 29, 2006 21:55:13 GMT -5
Couldn't the gash prove that Connor COULD have bleed out? How deep was it? When Laci disappeared, she was 7 1/2months pregnant. When Dr. Peterson had him those first few minutes, he stated the fetus was a FULL TERMfetus. There is no amount of miracles on earth that allows a fetus to continue to grow in the womb of its dead mother. He would have died with in 5 minutes after Laci did, ergo he would not have continued to grow, therefore he would not have appeared as full term fetus.
Does 8 years of experience make him an expert? Not in my book because he hasn't seen everything yet. Let him put in another 12 plus years, and he might come close.
|
|
lady
New Arrival
Posts: 3
|
Post by lady on Aug 30, 2006 0:48:11 GMT -5
This tells me that Laci died a violent death. If someone tried to cut out Conner or even killed Laci with a large object would lead to a crime scene that was never determined. This would mean there is blood somewhere and it wasn't in the house and it wasn't in the truck or the boat. So if that is the case that she died a violent death, that would prove that Scott didn't do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Aug 30, 2006 7:07:43 GMT -5
At the Prelim Geragos asked Dr. Peterson about a comment he allegedly made when he was only dealing with the baby -- before he knew the baby was Conner Peterson... the comment had to do with possibility that there was a mother out there in distress- FROM GIVING BIRTH..... but at the Prelim Dr. Peterson "couldn't recall".... How convenient. But if we consider that comment, and I believe he made it, then that tells me that Dr. Peterson did not think that baby washed up from the Bay. After all, mothers don't give birth in the Bay. A very intersting analysis on Conner NOT "washing up" can be found here: www.scottisinnocent.com/Research&Analysis/evidence/Conner/conner.htm |
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Oct 5, 2006 1:31:41 GMT -5
Im sorry, im not trying to argue with you at all. But i guess i just dont understand this comment.  I know that this is an extremely odd case, where usually if a body that size was in the water for any length of time, there would be SOME kind of animal feeding. (which still has me puzzeled to this day... no animal OR insect feeding... very strange) But still.. a Mother is still able to give birth in the bay. i.e. coffin birth. I still need to do some investigating on what kind of insects live in that area, in that kind of weather. So called 'coffin birth' cannot apply here. There is no mechanism known to medicine or science to 'expel' the baby from the womb. There is no way for the womb to shrink to become 2 or 3 weeks post partum after such expulsion. The whole theory is nonsense. See What are the odds?( << LINK) for more. |
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Oct 5, 2006 15:18:14 GMT -5
[quote author=barbaraweaver board= *SNIPPERS* But if we consider that comment, and I believe he made it, then that tells me that Dr. Peterson did not think that baby washed up from the Bay. After all, mothers don't give birth in the Bay. A very intersting analysis on Conner NOT "washing up" can be found here: www.scottisinnocent.com/Research&Analysis/evidence/Conner/conner.htmIm sorry, im not trying to argue with you at all. But i guess i just dont understand this comment. I know that this is an extremely odd case, where usually if a body that size was in the water for any length of time, there would be SOME kind of animal feeding. (which still has me puzzeled to this day... no animal OR insect feeding... very strange) But still.. a Mother is still able to give birth in the bay. i.e. coffin birth. I still need to do some investigating on what kind of insects live in that area, in that kind of weather. *apologizes for arguing to herself...  [/quote] Hi Rose, The context of his statement was that a woman may be in distress, because she just gave birth. A live woman. Does that make sense now? |
|
I know that this is an extremely odd case, where usually if a body that size was in the water for any length of time, there would be SOME kind of animal feeding. (which still has me puzzeled to this day... no animal OR insect feeding... very strange) But still.. a Mother is still able to give birth in the bay. i.e. coffin birth. 
[/quote]