Scott Peterson

These cases are suggested by forum members for research and information. Injustice Anywhere has not reviewed the details of each case and does not necessarily endorse any claims made within this section. Cases we currently advocate for can be viewed in the "Injustice Anywhere Featured Cases" section, located in the board index.
Forum rules
These cases are suggested by forum members for research and information. Injustice Anywhere has not reviewed the details of each case and does not necessarily endorse any claims made within this section. Cases we currently advocate for can be viewed in the "Injustice Anywhere Featured Cases" section, located in the board index.

Should we reconsider everything we've been told, when a man's life is on the line

Yes
86
79%
No
23
21%
 
Total votes : 109

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Feb 14, 2017 9:51 am

lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:AGAIN - please tell me what the criminal records were of the three men that Diane Jackson saw in front of the Medina home that morning.

LOL - so now burglaries don't happen during the day? Yeah - and thieves and murderers always stop and logically think - I better not kill this witness because it's SO much better to go away for 25 years to life for burglary than get the death penalty for murder. Wow - you are SO ridiculous.


How can you possibly re-tort with a stop to think argument, if they fled in the past when confronted and your argument is the 3rd strike reality, would that not take some forethought for them to suddenly change their pattern and kill? your talking in circles. so they are smart enough to think about the ramifications of a 3rd strike but in the same moment stupid enough to ignore the larger sentence for aggravated murder 1, this is the worst logic I have ever heard!

Anon


Okay - I'm going to make one more attempt - in hopes that you are just not listening to what I am saying and are not some troll that is playing games.

We know NOTHING about the three men that Diane Jackson saw, in front of the Medina home, standing behind a van and in the Medina's yard at 11:40 a.m. that morning. These three men were not Todd and Pearce.

You do realize that the Modesto Police Department's position on the burglary is that Steven Todd, rode his bicycle down Covena on December 25th, saw mail in the Medina's mailbox (that he could have only seen on Dec. 24th), while police and volunteers were combing the street and neighborhood and using the Peterson home as a make-shift volunteer center - and at that point decided 516 Covena, DIRECTLY across the street from the Peterson home would be a good house to burglarize? And that Steven Todd - that night - rode his bicycle - back and forth - hauling rolling tool chests of tools and large lawn equipment like weed eaters and edgers - on his bicycle?

This assertion - that Todd - hauled all these items on his bicycle - with a barking dog in the backyard of a home in a neighborhood that was now on HIGH alert is preposterous. Steven Todd had help and a vehicle to haul all that stuff.....and Diane Jackson saw his help at 11:40 the morning of the 24th. We know nothing about the criminal history of these men.


I get what you are saying,

This is another layer of speculation:

So who here they?
Where they even working with Todd?
Where they even at the location long enough to aid in the Burglary
If this was not Todd's crew adds credence to the notion that someone would have rolled over for the $40K reward
If it was Todd's crew - no history of violence - petty criminals

None of this means anything if Graybil is wrong about the gate or the date, both of which seem to be more likely possibilities than anything you have brought up in this post. Mackenzie getting lose from the property twice in the same day blah.... Seasoned petty Burglars spontaneously attacking but not killing a woman to hid their crime, something that Todd and associates have never done in the past. its a pathetic reach a predicated on the flawed memory of a mailman, who never testified in open court about any open gate, not by direct, cross, re-direct or re-cross......

As I have said previously, do't respond to my post, your comments are not required or needed for my ongoing participation.

your position of Scott's innocence is very thin, and based on huge jumps in speculation, 10 years later the innocence side of this argument is still asking questions that should already be answered, they are relying on unproven evidence, evidence that has already been ruled on and statements that have been held up to no scrutiny. you have nothing to over-turn a guilty verdict but speculation and a hope that the lawyer can be found incompetent.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:31 am

anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:AGAIN - please tell me what the criminal records were of the three men that Diane Jackson saw in front of the Medina home that morning.

LOL - so now burglaries don't happen during the day? Yeah - and thieves and murderers always stop and logically think - I better not kill this witness because it's SO much better to go away for 25 years to life for burglary than get the death penalty for murder. Wow - you are SO ridiculous.


How can you possibly re-tort with a stop to think argument, if they fled in the past when confronted and your argument is the 3rd strike reality, would that not take some forethought for them to suddenly change their pattern and kill? your talking in circles. so they are smart enough to think about the ramifications of a 3rd strike but in the same moment stupid enough to ignore the larger sentence for aggravated murder 1, this is the worst logic I have ever heard!

Anon


Okay - I'm going to make one more attempt - in hopes that you are just not listening to what I am saying and are not some troll that is playing games.

We know NOTHING about the three men that Diane Jackson saw, in front of the Medina home, standing behind a van and in the Medina's yard at 11:40 a.m. that morning. These three men were not Todd and Pearce.

You do realize that the Modesto Police Department's position on the burglary is that Steven Todd, rode his bicycle down Covena on December 25th, saw mail in the Medina's mailbox (that he could have only seen on Dec. 24th), while police and volunteers were combing the street and neighborhood and using the Peterson home as a make-shift volunteer center - and at that point decided 516 Covena, DIRECTLY across the street from the Peterson home would be a good house to burglarize? And that Steven Todd - that night - rode his bicycle - back and forth - hauling rolling tool chests of tools and large lawn equipment like weed eaters and edgers - on his bicycle?

This assertion - that Todd - hauled all these items on his bicycle - with a barking dog in the backyard of a home in a neighborhood that was now on HIGH alert is preposterous. Steven Todd had help and a vehicle to haul all that stuff.....and Diane Jackson saw his help at 11:40 the morning of the 24th. We know nothing about the criminal history of these men.


I get what you are saying,

This is another layer of speculation:

So who here they?
Where they even working with Todd?
Where they even at the location long enough to aid in the Burglary
If this was not Todd's crew adds credence to the notion that someone would have rolled over for the $40K reward
If it was Todd's crew - no history of violence - petty criminals

None of this means anything if Graybil is wrong about the gate or the date, both of which seem to be more likely possibilities than anything you have brought up in this post. Mackenzie getting lose from the property twice in the same day blah.... Seasoned petty Burglars spontaneously attacking but not killing a woman to hid their crime, something that Todd and associates have never done in the past. its a pathetic reach a predicated on the flawed memory of a mailman, who never testified in open court about any open gate, not by direct, cross, re-direct or re-cross......

As I have said previously, do't respond to my post, your comments are not required or needed for my ongoing participation.

your position of Scott's innocence is very thin, and based on huge jumps in speculation, 10 years later the innocence side of this argument is still asking questions that should already be answered, they are relying on unproven evidence, evidence that has already been ruled on and statements that have been held up to no scrutiny. you have nothing to over-turn a guilty verdict but speculation and a hope that the lawyer can be found incompetent.

Anon


Like I pointed out before....you're a hypocrite.....when the prosecution comes up with a theory based on facts it's a "strong circumstantial case"....when we come up with an even stronger circumstantial case that someone else was responsible - you call it "speculation".

Fortunately what you think doesn't matter when it comes to Scott's appeal or his next trial.

So you just sit back....and watch. We will see.

I'm still perplexed as to why you are here. You don't seem to have the mindset for someone who is looking to right injustices. For you to suggest that the defense should have more answers after 10 years shows just how much you DON'T know.

You asked me a question - then tell me not to respond to your posts - lol. Just for the record, the more you tell me NOT to respond to your posts - chances are the more I will.

But I'm done discussing with you. You're not here to learn about this case. You're satisfied with your conclusion based on mis-information. But just so you know....any mis-information you decide to regurgitate - I'll be sure to correct you.

Like your statement that it's likely that the mailman was wrong about the gate or the date. It's actually quite UNLIKELY that Graybill remembered the wrong day. I won't bore everyone with the reasons AGAIN....I'm sure the people that really want to know the facts of this case have already absorbed that information based on the numerous times I've attempted to correct you about it.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Feb 14, 2017 6:50 pm

lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:AGAIN - please tell me what the criminal records were of the three men that Diane Jackson saw in front of the Medina home that morning.

LOL - so now burglaries don't happen during the day? Yeah - and thieves and murderers always stop and logically think - I better not kill this witness because it's SO much better to go away for 25 years to life for burglary than get the death penalty for murder. Wow - you are SO ridiculous.


How can you possibly re-tort with a stop to think argument, if they fled in the past when confronted and your argument is the 3rd strike reality, would that not take some forethought for them to suddenly change their pattern and kill? your talking in circles. so they are smart enough to think about the ramifications of a 3rd strike but in the same moment stupid enough to ignore the larger sentence for aggravated murder 1, this is the worst logic I have ever heard!

Anon


Okay - I'm going to make one more attempt - in hopes that you are just not listening to what I am saying and are not some troll that is playing games.

We know NOTHING about the three men that Diane Jackson saw, in front of the Medina home, standing behind a van and in the Medina's yard at 11:40 a.m. that morning. These three men were not Todd and Pearce.

You do realize that the Modesto Police Department's position on the burglary is that Steven Todd, rode his bicycle down Covena on December 25th, saw mail in the Medina's mailbox (that he could have only seen on Dec. 24th), while police and volunteers were combing the street and neighborhood and using the Peterson home as a make-shift volunteer center - and at that point decided 516 Covena, DIRECTLY across the street from the Peterson home would be a good house to burglarize? And that Steven Todd - that night - rode his bicycle - back and forth - hauling rolling tool chests of tools and large lawn equipment like weed eaters and edgers - on his bicycle?

This assertion - that Todd - hauled all these items on his bicycle - with a barking dog in the backyard of a home in a neighborhood that was now on HIGH alert is preposterous. Steven Todd had help and a vehicle to haul all that stuff.....and Diane Jackson saw his help at 11:40 the morning of the 24th. We know nothing about the criminal history of these men.


I get what you are saying,

This is another layer of speculation:

So who here they?
Where they even working with Todd?
Where they even at the location long enough to aid in the Burglary
If this was not Todd's crew adds credence to the notion that someone would have rolled over for the $40K reward
If it was Todd's crew - no history of violence - petty criminals

None of this means anything if Graybil is wrong about the gate or the date, both of which seem to be more likely possibilities than anything you have brought up in this post. Mackenzie getting lose from the property twice in the same day blah.... Seasoned petty Burglars spontaneously attacking but not killing a woman to hid their crime, something that Todd and associates have never done in the past. its a pathetic reach a predicated on the flawed memory of a mailman, who never testified in open court about any open gate, not by direct, cross, re-direct or re-cross......

As I have said previously, do't respond to my post, your comments are not required or needed for my ongoing participation.

your position of Scott's innocence is very thin, and based on huge jumps in speculation, 10 years later the innocence side of this argument is still asking questions that should already be answered, they are relying on unproven evidence, evidence that has already been ruled on and statements that have been held up to no scrutiny. you have nothing to over-turn a guilty verdict but speculation and a hope that the lawyer can be found incompetent.

Anon


Like I pointed out before....you're a hypocrite.....when the prosecution comes up with a theory based on facts it's a "strong circumstantial case"....when we come up with an even stronger circumstantial case that someone else was responsible - you call it "speculation".

Fortunately what you think doesn't matter when it comes to Scott's appeal or his next trial.

So you just sit back....and watch. We will see.

I'm still perplexed as to why you are here. You don't seem to have the mindset for someone who is looking to right injustices. For you to suggest that the defense should have more answers after 10 years shows just how much you DON'T know.

You asked me a question - then tell me not to respond to your posts - lol. Just for the record, the more you tell me NOT to respond to your posts - chances are the more I will.

But I'm done discussing with you. You're not here to learn about this case. You're satisfied with your conclusion based on mis-information. But just so you know....any mis-information you decide to regurgitate - I'll be sure to correct you.

Like your statement that it's likely that the mailman was wrong about the gate or the date. It's actually quite UNLIKELY that Graybill remembered the wrong day. I won't bore everyone with the reasons AGAIN....I'm sure the people that really want to know the facts of this case have already absorbed that information based on the numerous times I've attempted to correct you about it.


Graybil is the only outlier, all the other evidence works against him seeing the gate open.

As I have said many times which you don't seem to get: Scott is already Guilty, that is the reality, you may want to forget that fact. You can argue that the prosecutions case is flawed, but it led to a verdict which is now the reality you have to deal with! The appeal, the writ and the evidence surrounding them have to follow the rules of each procedure. To remove the presumption of guilt that is now stated by law, you have to have more that spotting 3 men on the street, more than a mailman who may or may not recall an open gate.

To suggest your Burglary scenrio is a more likely circumstantial case than that present py the prosecution show how out of touch with reality you are!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:21 am

anonshy wrote:Graybil is the only outlier, all the other evidence works against him seeing the gate open.

As I have said many times which you don't seem to get: Scott is already Guilty, that is the reality, you may want to forget that fact. You can argue that the prosecutions case is flawed, but it led to a verdict which is now the reality you have to deal with! The appeal, the writ and the evidence surrounding them have to follow the rules of each procedure. To remove the presumption of guilt that is now stated by law, you have to have more that spotting 3 men on the street, more than a mailman who may or may not recall an open gate.

To suggest your Burglary scenrio is a more likely circumstantial case than that present py the prosecution show how out of touch with reality you are!

Anon


The thing you don't seem to get is the significance of the judicial errors, the juror misconduct, the prosecutorial misconduct, the ineffective assistance of counsel, and the numerous violations of constitutional rights that took place in Scott Peterson's trial.

These are all things that will be addressed by the California Supreme Court. It is not just a matter of the 3 men on the street or Graybill seeing an open gate. There is much, much more to this process.

Although this has been posted many times before, I will post it again. I'd suggest that you read it this time since you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

The Direct Appeal

http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/uploads/2/4/8/2/24829415/scottsbrief.pdf

Errors Occurring During Voir Dire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
I. The Trial Court Improperly Discharged Thirteen Prospective Jurors Over Defense Objection Based Solely
On Jury Questionnaire Answers Showing That Although They Opposed The Death Penalty, They Could
Nevertheless Consider Death As An Option. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Ii. The Trial Court’s Improper Discharge Of Thirteen Prospective Jurors Based On Their Opposition To The
Death Penalty Also Violated Mr. Peterson’s Eighth Amendment Right To Reliable Guilt Phase Procedures,
And Requires Reversal Of The Convictions As Well . . . . . . 108
Iii. The Trial Court Improperly Excused An Additional 17 Prospective Jurors Based Solely On Jury Questionnaire
Answers Which Did Not Show These Jurors Would Be Unable To Set Aside Their Opposition To The Death
Penalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Iv. Because The Trial Court Erroneously Excused Five Prospective Jurors Who Were Equivocal About Whether
Their Attitudes About The Death Penalty Would Affect Their Penalty Phase Deliberations, Reversal Of The
Death Sentence Is Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Errors Relating To The Guilt Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
V. The Trial Court Committed Prejudicial Error And Violated Mr. Peterson’s State And Federal
Constitutional Rights By Forcing Him To Trial In A Community Where 96% Of The Jury Venire Had Been
Exposed To Massive Pretrial Publicity About The Case And Nearly Half Of All Prospective Jurors Had Already
Concluded He Was Guilty Of Capital Murder . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Vi. The Trial Court Committed Prejudicial Error, And Violated Mr. Peterson’s Fifth And Eighth Amendment
Rights, By Admitting Dog Scent Identification Evidence hat Provided Critical Factual Support For The State’s
Theory Of The Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Vii. The Trial Court Created An Unconstitutional Presumption, And Lightened The State’s Burden Of Proof
Beyond A Reasonable Doubt, By Telling The Jury It Could Infer Mr. Peterson Was Guilty Of Murder Based
On (1) The Dog Tracking Evidence And (2) Any Evidence Which Supports The Accuracy If That Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Viii. The Error In Instructing The Jury With Caljic Number 2.16, Permitting The Jury To Convict If It Found That The
Dog Tracking Evidence Was Corroborated By Other Evidence, Was Compounded By The Court’s Failure To
Inform The Jury That It Could Rely On The Dog Tracking Evidence To Acquit, As Well As To Convict . . . . .
Ix. The Trial Court Violated Both State And Federal Law By Admitting Expert “Scientific” Evidence, Based On
Where Conner’s Body Was Found, To Infer That Conner Was Placed In The Water Where Mr. Peterson Had Been
Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
X. The Trial Court Committed Prejudicial Error, And Violated Mr. Peterson’s Fifth And Sixth Amendment
Rights, In (1) Excluding Critical Defense Evidence Undercutting The State’s Theory Of The Case, (2)
Refusing To Allow Defendant To Examine Evidence Absent The Presence Of State Prosecutors And (3)
Refusing To Grant A Mistrial After The Jury Itself Performed An Experiment During Deliberations . . . . . . . . . 297
Xi. The Prosecutor Committed Prejudicial Misconduct And Violated Due Process By Urging The Jury To Reject
The Defense Theory And Convict Mr. Peterson Of First Degree Murder Because Defense Counsel Did Not
Present Demonstrative Evidence Showing The Instability Of Mr. Peterson’s Boat When, In Fact, The
Trial Court Had Excluded This Very Evidence At The Prosecutor’s Own Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
Xii. The Trial Court Erred In Discharging Juror 5 For Discussing The Case In Violation Of The Court’s
Admonition But Then Refusing To Dismiss Other Jurors And Alternates Who Admitted They Too Had Discussed
The Case In Violation Of The Identical Admonition . . . . . . . 351
Xiii. The Trial Court’s Failure To Conduct An Adequate Hearing In Determining Whether Juror 8 Discussed The
Case With A Nonjuror Requires Remand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386

Errors Relating To The Penalty Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
398
Xiv. The Trial Court Committed Reversible Error, And Violated Mr. Peterson’s Rights Under The Fifth, Sixth,
Eighth And Fourteenth Amendments, When It Refused To Seat A New Penalty Phase Jury After The Jurors Who
Convicted Mr. Peterson Of Murder Were Applauded By Wildly Cheering Mobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
Xv. The Trial Court Erred In Precluding Mr. Peterson From Presenting Relevant Mitigating Evidence Which Could
Have Served As A Basis For A Sentence Less Than Death . . 410
Xvi. Because The California Capital Sentencing Scheme Is Unconstitutional In Numerous Respects, Mr. Peterson’s
Death Sentence Must Be Reversed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424

The Habeas Appeal
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/uploads/2/4/8/2/24829415/petersonhabeas.pdf

CLAIM ONE:
Petitioner Was Deprived Of His Fifth, Sixth And Eighth Amendment
Rights to A Fair And Impartial Jury, And A Reliable Determination Of
Penalty By A Seated Juror’s Concealment Of Bias During Voir Dire . 9.6
CLAIM TWO:
Presentation of False Evidence, In Violation Of Due Process And
Penal Code section 1473, Regarding Conner’s Fetal Age At The
Time Of Death. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
CLAIM THREE:
Petitioner Was Deprived of His Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendment Rights By His Counsel’s Ineffective Assistance In Failing
To Consult With, And Present The Testimony Of, An Expert In The
Field Of Fetal Biometry.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
CLAIM FOUR:
Presentation of False Evidence, In Violation Of Due Process And
Penal Code section 1473, By The State’s Introduction Of False
Evidence That A Trailing Dog Detected Laci’s Scent At The Boat
Ramp In The Berkeley Mar.in.a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
CLAIM FIVE:
Petitioner Was Deprived Of His Fifth, Sixth, Eighth And Fourteenth
Amendment Rights By His Counsel’s Ineffective Assistance
In Failing To Present The Testimony Of An Expert In The Field
Of Dog-Scent Identification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
iii
CLAIM SIX:
Presentation of False Evidence, In Violation Of Due Process And
Penal Code section 1473, By The State’s Introduction Of False Evidence
That The Bodies of Laci and Conner Could Only Have Originated
From The Area In Which Petitioner Said He Was Fishing. . . . . . . . 154
CLAIM SEVEN:
Petitioner Was Deprived Of His Fifth, Sixth, Eighth And Fourteenth
Amendment Rights By His Counsel’s Ineffective Assistance
In Failing To Present The Testimony Of An Expert In The Field
Of The Movement of Bodies In Bays and Estuaries, And By Counsel’s
Failure To Effectively Cross-Examine The Prosecution’s Expert .. . 174
CLAIM EIGHT:
Petitioner Was Deprived Of His Fifth, Sixth, Eighth And Fourteenth
Amendment Rights By His Counsel’s Ineffective Assistance In
Promising The Jury That It Would Hear Three Categories Of
Exculpatory Evidence Which Would Prove Scott Was “Stone Cold
Innocent,” And Then By Not Fulfilling Those Promises . . . . . . . . . 179
CLAIM NINE:
Petitioner Was Deprived Of His Fifth, Sixth, Eighth And Fourteenth
Amendment Rights By His Counsel’s Ineffective Assistance
In Failing To Present Exculpatory Evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
CLAIM TEN:
Petitioner Was Deprived Of His Fifth, Sixth, Eighth And Fourteenth
Amendment Rights By Counsel’s Failure To Present Exculpatory
Evidence That Steven Todd Saw Laci in Modesto After Scott Left For
The Berkeley Marina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
iv
CLAIM ELEVEN:
Cumulative Error. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
CLAIM TWELVE:
The California Death Penalty Statute Unconstitutionally Fails
To Narrow The Class Of Offenders Eligible For The Death
Penalty.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
CLAIM THIRTEEN:
The Sentences of Death in California Are Unconstitutionally
Dependent On The County In Which The Defendant Is Charged.. . . 230
CLAIM FOURTEEN:
Petitioner Was Denied His Right to Be Tried by a Fair
and Impartial Jury. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
CLAIM FIFTEEN:
The Death Penalty As Currently Administered In California
Is Cruel and Unusual And Unconstitutional. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
CLAIM SIXTEEN:
Impediments and Deficiencies In The Post-Trial Process
Render Petitioner’s Convictions And Sentences Unreliable
And Unconstitutional. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
v
CLAIM SEVENTEEN:
California’s Death Penalty System Is Wracked By Delay And
Arbitrariness To the Point That It Fails To Serve Any Penological
Purpose. It Therefore Violates State and Federal Constitutional
Protections Against Cruel, Torturous, and Unusual Punishment and
International Law .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
CLAIM EIGHTEEN:
Petitioner's Sentence of Death Is Illegal and Unconstitutional under the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as Well as the California
Constitution, Because Execution by Lethal Injection, the Method by
Which the State of California Plans to Execute Him, Violates the
Prohibition of Cruel and Unusual Punishment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
CLAIM NINETEEN:
The Violations of State and Federal Law Articulated In This Petition
Likewise Constitute Violations Of International Law, And Require
That Petitioner’s Convictions and Penalty Be Set Aside. . . . . . . . . . 273
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:31 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:Graybil is the only outlier, all the other evidence works against him seeing the gate open.

As I have said many times which you don't seem to get: Scott is already Guilty, that is the reality, you may want to forget that fact. You can argue that the prosecutions case is flawed, but it led to a verdict which is now the reality you have to deal with! The appeal, the writ and the evidence surrounding them have to follow the rules of each procedure. To remove the presumption of guilt that is now stated by law, you have to have more that spotting 3 men on the street, more than a mailman who may or may not recall an open gate.

To suggest your Burglary scenrio is a more likely circumstantial case than that present py the prosecution show how out of touch with reality you are!

Anon


The thing you don't seem to get is the significance of the judicial errors, the juror misconduct, the prosecutorial misconduct, the ineffective assistance of counsel, and the numerous violations of constitutional rights that took place in Scott Peterson's trial.

These are all things that will be addressed by the California Supreme Court. It is not just a matter of the 3 men on the street or Graybill seeing an open gate. There is much, much more to this process.

Although this has been posted many times before, I will post it again. I'd suggest that you read it this time since you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

The Direct Appeal

http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/uploads/2/4/8/2/24829415/scottsbrief.pdf

Errors Occurring During Voir Dire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
I. The Trial Court Improperly Discharged Thirteen Prospective Jurors Over Defense Objection Based Solely
On Jury Questionnaire Answers Showing That Although They Opposed The Death Penalty, They Could
Nevertheless Consider Death As An Option. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Ii. The Trial Court’s Improper Discharge Of Thirteen Prospective Jurors Based On Their Opposition To The
Death Penalty Also Violated Mr. Peterson’s Eighth Amendment Right To Reliable Guilt Phase Procedures,
And Requires Reversal Of The Convictions As Well . . . . . . 108
Iii. The Trial Court Improperly Excused An Additional 17 Prospective Jurors Based Solely On Jury Questionnaire
Answers Which Did Not Show These Jurors Would Be Unable To Set Aside Their Opposition To The Death
Penalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Iv. Because The Trial Court Erroneously Excused Five Prospective Jurors Who Were Equivocal About Whether
Their Attitudes About The Death Penalty Would Affect Their Penalty Phase Deliberations, Reversal Of The
Death Sentence Is Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Errors Relating To The Guilt Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
V. The Trial Court Committed Prejudicial Error And Violated Mr. Peterson’s State And Federal
Constitutional Rights By Forcing Him To Trial In A Community Where 96% Of The Jury Venire Had Been
Exposed To Massive Pretrial Publicity About The Case And Nearly Half Of All Prospective Jurors Had Already
Concluded He Was Guilty Of Capital Murder . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Vi. The Trial Court Committed Prejudicial Error, And Violated Mr. Peterson’s Fifth And Eighth Amendment
Rights, By Admitting Dog Scent Identification Evidence hat Provided Critical Factual Support For The State’s
Theory Of The Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Vii. The Trial Court Created An Unconstitutional Presumption, And Lightened The State’s Burden Of Proof
Beyond A Reasonable Doubt, By Telling The Jury It Could Infer Mr. Peterson Was Guilty Of Murder Based
On (1) The Dog Tracking Evidence And (2) Any Evidence Which Supports The Accuracy If That Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Viii. The Error In Instructing The Jury With Caljic Number 2.16, Permitting The Jury To Convict If It Found That The
Dog Tracking Evidence Was Corroborated By Other Evidence, Was Compounded By The Court’s Failure To
Inform The Jury That It Could Rely On The Dog Tracking Evidence To Acquit, As Well As To Convict . . . . .
Ix. The Trial Court Violated Both State And Federal Law By Admitting Expert “Scientific” Evidence, Based On
Where Conner’s Body Was Found, To Infer That Conner Was Placed In The Water Where Mr. Peterson Had Been
Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
X. The Trial Court Committed Prejudicial Error, And Violated Mr. Peterson’s Fifth And Sixth Amendment
Rights, In (1) Excluding Critical Defense Evidence Undercutting The State’s Theory Of The Case, (2)
Refusing To Allow Defendant To Examine Evidence Absent The Presence Of State Prosecutors And (3)
Refusing To Grant A Mistrial After The Jury Itself Performed An Experiment During Deliberations . . . . . . . . . 297
Xi. The Prosecutor Committed Prejudicial Misconduct And Violated Due Process By Urging The Jury To Reject
The Defense Theory And Convict Mr. Peterson Of First Degree Murder Because Defense Counsel Did Not
Present Demonstrative Evidence Showing The Instability Of Mr. Peterson’s Boat When, In Fact, The
Trial Court Had Excluded This Very Evidence At The Prosecutor’s Own Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
Xii. The Trial Court Erred In Discharging Juror 5 For Discussing The Case In Violation Of The Court’s
Admonition But Then Refusing To Dismiss Other Jurors And Alternates Who Admitted They Too Had Discussed
The Case In Violation Of The Identical Admonition . . . . . . . 351
Xiii. The Trial Court’s Failure To Conduct An Adequate Hearing In Determining Whether Juror 8 Discussed The
Case With A Nonjuror Requires Remand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386

Errors Relating To The Penalty Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
398
Xiv. The Trial Court Committed Reversible Error, And Violated Mr. Peterson’s Rights Under The Fifth, Sixth,
Eighth And Fourteenth Amendments, When It Refused To Seat A New Penalty Phase Jury After The Jurors Who
Convicted Mr. Peterson Of Murder Were Applauded By Wildly Cheering Mobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
Xv. The Trial Court Erred In Precluding Mr. Peterson From Presenting Relevant Mitigating Evidence Which Could
Have Served As A Basis For A Sentence Less Than Death . . 410
Xvi. Because The California Capital Sentencing Scheme Is Unconstitutional In Numerous Respects, Mr. Peterson’s
Death Sentence Must Be Reversed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424

The Habeas Appeal
http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/uploads/2/4/8/2/24829415/petersonhabeas.pdf

CLAIM ONE:
Petitioner Was Deprived Of His Fifth, Sixth And Eighth Amendment
Rights to A Fair And Impartial Jury, And A Reliable Determination Of
Penalty By A Seated Juror’s Concealment Of Bias During Voir Dire . 9.6
CLAIM TWO:
Presentation of False Evidence, In Violation Of Due Process And
Penal Code section 1473, Regarding Conner’s Fetal Age At The
Time Of Death. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
CLAIM THREE:
Petitioner Was Deprived of His Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendment Rights By His Counsel’s Ineffective Assistance In Failing
To Consult With, And Present The Testimony Of, An Expert In The
Field Of Fetal Biometry.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
CLAIM FOUR:
Presentation of False Evidence, In Violation Of Due Process And
Penal Code section 1473, By The State’s Introduction Of False
Evidence That A Trailing Dog Detected Laci’s Scent At The Boat
Ramp In The Berkeley Mar.in.a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
CLAIM FIVE:
Petitioner Was Deprived Of His Fifth, Sixth, Eighth And Fourteenth
Amendment Rights By His Counsel’s Ineffective Assistance
In Failing To Present The Testimony Of An Expert In The Field
Of Dog-Scent Identification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
iii
CLAIM SIX:
Presentation of False Evidence, In Violation Of Due Process And
Penal Code section 1473, By The State’s Introduction Of False Evidence
That The Bodies of Laci and Conner Could Only Have Originated
From The Area In Which Petitioner Said He Was Fishing. . . . . . . . 154
CLAIM SEVEN:
Petitioner Was Deprived Of His Fifth, Sixth, Eighth And Fourteenth
Amendment Rights By His Counsel’s Ineffective Assistance
In Failing To Present The Testimony Of An Expert In The Field
Of The Movement of Bodies In Bays and Estuaries, And By Counsel’s
Failure To Effectively Cross-Examine The Prosecution’s Expert .. . 174
CLAIM EIGHT:
Petitioner Was Deprived Of His Fifth, Sixth, Eighth And Fourteenth
Amendment Rights By His Counsel’s Ineffective Assistance In
Promising The Jury That It Would Hear Three Categories Of
Exculpatory Evidence Which Would Prove Scott Was “Stone Cold
Innocent,” And Then By Not Fulfilling Those Promises . . . . . . . . . 179
CLAIM NINE:
Petitioner Was Deprived Of His Fifth, Sixth, Eighth And Fourteenth
Amendment Rights By His Counsel’s Ineffective Assistance
In Failing To Present Exculpatory Evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
CLAIM TEN:
Petitioner Was Deprived Of His Fifth, Sixth, Eighth And Fourteenth
Amendment Rights By Counsel’s Failure To Present Exculpatory
Evidence That Steven Todd Saw Laci in Modesto After Scott Left For
The Berkeley Marina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
iv
CLAIM ELEVEN:
Cumulative Error. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
CLAIM TWELVE:
The California Death Penalty Statute Unconstitutionally Fails
To Narrow The Class Of Offenders Eligible For The Death
Penalty.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
CLAIM THIRTEEN:
The Sentences of Death in California Are Unconstitutionally
Dependent On The County In Which The Defendant Is Charged.. . . 230
CLAIM FOURTEEN:
Petitioner Was Denied His Right to Be Tried by a Fair
and Impartial Jury. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
CLAIM FIFTEEN:
The Death Penalty As Currently Administered In California
Is Cruel and Unusual And Unconstitutional. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
CLAIM SIXTEEN:
Impediments and Deficiencies In The Post-Trial Process
Render Petitioner’s Convictions And Sentences Unreliable
And Unconstitutional. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
v
CLAIM SEVENTEEN:
California’s Death Penalty System Is Wracked By Delay And
Arbitrariness To the Point That It Fails To Serve Any Penological
Purpose. It Therefore Violates State and Federal Constitutional
Protections Against Cruel, Torturous, and Unusual Punishment and
International Law .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
CLAIM EIGHTEEN:
Petitioner's Sentence of Death Is Illegal and Unconstitutional under the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as Well as the California
Constitution, Because Execution by Lethal Injection, the Method by
Which the State of California Plans to Execute Him, Violates the
Prohibition of Cruel and Unusual Punishment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
CLAIM NINETEEN:
The Violations of State and Federal Law Articulated In This Petition
Likewise Constitute Violations Of International Law, And Require
That Petitioner’s Convictions and Penalty Be Set Aside. . . . . . . . . . 273


Great cut and paste job, that does nothing to further conversation. That is almost a standard form every Lawyer in California uses for for Habeas, probably downloadable for a fee off legalzoom. Just because you think there where errors which is an opinion you are welcome to, does not mean they are valid, does not mean they adhere to the rules of procedure, lawyers can argue anything!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:32 am

anonshy wrote:Great cut and paste job, that does nothing to further conversation. That is almost a standard form every Lawyer in California uses for for Habeas, probably downloadable for a fee off legalzoom. Just because you think there where errors which is an opinion you are welcome to, does not mean they are valid, does not mean they adhere to the rules of procedure, lawyers can argue anything!

Anon


Ridiculous! I challenge you to find these points anywhere in any standard form:

Vi. The Trial Court Committed Prejudicial Error, And Violated Mr. Peterson’s Fifth And Eighth Amendment
Rights, By Admitting Dog Scent Identification Evidence hat Provided Critical Factual Support For The State’s
Theory Of The Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Vii. The Trial Court Created An Unconstitutional Presumption, And Lightened The State’s Burden Of Proof
Beyond A Reasonable Doubt, By Telling The Jury It Could Infer Mr. Peterson Was Guilty Of Murder Based
On (1) The Dog Tracking Evidence And (2) Any Evidence Which Supports The Accuracy If That Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Viii. The Error In Instructing The Jury With Caljic Number 2.16, Permitting The Jury To Convict If It Found That The
Dog Tracking Evidence Was Corroborated By Other Evidence, Was Compounded By The Court’s Failure To
Inform The Jury That It Could Rely On The Dog Tracking Evidence To Acquit, As Well As To Convict . . . . .
Ix. The Trial Court Violated Both State And Federal Law By Admitting Expert “Scientific” Evidence, Based On
Where Conner’s Body Was Found, To Infer That Conner Was Placed In The Water Where Mr. Peterson Had Been
Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
X. The Trial Court Committed Prejudicial Error, And Violated Mr. Peterson’s Fifth And Sixth Amendment
Rights, In (1) Excluding Critical Defense Evidence Undercutting The State’s Theory Of The Case, (2)
Refusing To Allow Defendant To Examine Evidence Absent The Presence Of State Prosecutors And (3)
Refusing To Grant A Mistrial After The Jury Itself Performed An Experiment During Deliberations . . . . . . . . . 297
Xi. The Prosecutor Committed Prejudicial Misconduct And Violated Due Process By Urging The Jury To Reject
The Defense Theory And Convict Mr. Peterson Of First Degree Murder Because Defense Counsel Did Not
Present Demonstrative Evidence Showing The Instability Of Mr. Peterson’s Boat When, In Fact, The
Trial Court Had Excluded This Very Evidence At The Prosecutor’s Own Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
Xii. The Trial Court Erred In Discharging Juror 5 For Discussing The Case In Violation Of The Court’s
Admonition But Then Refusing To Dismiss Other Jurors And Alternates Who Admitted They Too Had Discussed
The Case In Violation Of The Identical Admonition . . . . . . . 351
Xiii. The Trial Court’s Failure To Conduct An Adequate Hearing In Determining Whether Juror 8 Discussed The
Case With A Nonjuror Requires Remand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
...........

CLAIM TWO:
Presentation of False Evidence, In Violation Of Due Process And
Penal Code section 1473, Regarding Conner’s Fetal Age At The
Time Of Death. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
CLAIM THREE:
Petitioner Was Deprived of His Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendment Rights By His Counsel’s Ineffective Assistance In Failing
To Consult With, And Present The Testimony Of, An Expert In The
Field Of Fetal Biometry.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
CLAIM FOUR:
Presentation of False Evidence, In Violation Of Due Process And
Penal Code section 1473, By The State’s Introduction Of False
Evidence That A Trailing Dog Detected Laci’s Scent At The Boat
Ramp In The Berkeley Mar.in.a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
CLAIM FIVE:
Petitioner Was Deprived Of His Fifth, Sixth, Eighth And Fourteenth
Amendment Rights By His Counsel’s Ineffective Assistance
In Failing To Present The Testimony Of An Expert In The Field
Of Dog-Scent Identification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
iii
CLAIM SIX:
Presentation of False Evidence, In Violation Of Due Process And
Penal Code section 1473, By The State’s Introduction Of False Evidence
That The Bodies of Laci and Conner Could Only Have Originated
From The Area In Which Petitioner Said He Was Fishing. . . . . . . . 154
CLAIM SEVEN:
Petitioner Was Deprived Of His Fifth, Sixth, Eighth And Fourteenth
Amendment Rights By His Counsel’s Ineffective Assistance
In Failing To Present The Testimony Of An Expert In The Field
Of The Movement of Bodies In Bays and Estuaries, And By Counsel’s
Failure To Effectively Cross-Examine The Prosecution’s Expert .. . 174
CLAIM EIGHT:
Petitioner Was Deprived Of His Fifth, Sixth, Eighth And Fourteenth
Amendment Rights By His Counsel’s Ineffective Assistance In
Promising The Jury That It Would Hear Three Categories Of
Exculpatory Evidence Which Would Prove Scott Was “Stone Cold
Innocent,” And Then By Not Fulfilling Those Promises . . . . . . . . . 179
CLAIM NINE:
Petitioner Was Deprived Of His Fifth, Sixth, Eighth And Fourteenth
Amendment Rights By His Counsel’s Ineffective Assistance
In Failing To Present Exculpatory Evidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
CLAIM TEN:
Petitioner Was Deprived Of His Fifth, Sixth, Eighth And Fourteenth
Amendment Rights By Counsel’s Failure To Present Exculpatory
Evidence That Steven Todd Saw Laci in Modesto After Scott Left For
The Berkeley Marina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:05 am

anonshy wrote:Graybil is the only outlier, all the other evidence works against him seeing the gate open.

As I have said many times which you don't seem to get: Scott is already Guilty, that is the reality, you may want to forget that fact. You can argue that the prosecutions case is flawed, but it led to a verdict which is now the reality you have to deal with! The appeal, the writ and the evidence surrounding them have to follow the rules of each procedure. To remove the presumption of guilt that is now stated by law, you have to have more that spotting 3 men on the street, more than a mailman who may or may not recall an open gate.

To suggest your Burglary scenrio is a more likely circumstantial case than that present py the prosecution show how out of touch with reality you are!

Anon


And what I have said many times that you don't seem to get: I am not only here to argue the strength of Scott's appeal. In case you are not aware (and maybe you should familiarize yourself with if you're going to hang around discussion boards like this one) - there are many phases and facets of freeing someone who has been wrongfully convicted. And one of those facets (especially in this case) is correcting the misinformation that is out there and hopefully helping to turn the tide of public opinion away from that guilty mentality (especially when it is based on SO much mis-information). And stopping people like YOU from regurgitating the same Nancy Grace crap over and over again.

I could not care less if YOU think Scott is guilty or what you think about how successful or unsuccessful his appeal will be. But people like you who aren't interested in the truth.....people like you who continue to spread mis-information about someone's case.....those close minded people who don't care about the truth because they have their minds made up......those people - THAT is what I don't get. Especially for someone like you - who has been on the this side - in the Amanda Knox case. I just don't get people like you...nor do I want to.

LOL - Graybill is NOT the only outlier. He's not an outlier at all. The Tenbrink brothers talking to each other about Laci confronting the burglars. The people who saw Laci walking. What you don't get is that in a Scott is innocent scenario - ALL of these people can be right. Servas is right. The people who saw Laci walking are right. Graybill is right. The Tenbrinks are right. For Scott to be guilty you have to dismiss everyone except Karen Servas. That's logical to you? Okaaayyyy.

Graybill isn't an outlier. He's the smoking gun. That's why his open gate information only appeared in one small blurb in a handwritten report. You know the police interviewed him later - and prepared reports. Yet there is nothing in there about the gate being open. There is a pattern in this case with exonerating evidence disappearing. No interview with Aponte. Aponte says he called the tipline multiple times but yet there is only one tip (guess they missed that one). Don't forget Mr. R who led Geragos to the Aponte tip. The woman that saw Laci at the warehouse....Brocchini admitted he left that information out of his report. Now the Graybill info.

On the flip side - the prosecution's case just doesn't hold together. It's ridiculous that you think Laci was dead on the 23rd when she was clearly alive and on the computer the morning of the 24th. But do you know why you have to think that? Because you know Scott didn't have time to do all that he would have had to do if he had killed her the morning of the 24th. The prosecution's case doesn't hold together.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Feb 15, 2017 12:47 pm

lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:Graybil is the only outlier, all the other evidence works against him seeing the gate open.

As I have said many times which you don't seem to get: Scott is already Guilty, that is the reality, you may want to forget that fact. You can argue that the prosecutions case is flawed, but it led to a verdict which is now the reality you have to deal with! The appeal, the writ and the evidence surrounding them have to follow the rules of each procedure. To remove the presumption of guilt that is now stated by law, you have to have more that spotting 3 men on the street, more than a mailman who may or may not recall an open gate.

To suggest your Burglary scenrio is a more likely circumstantial case than that present py the prosecution show how out of touch with reality you are!

Anon


And what I have said many times that you don't seem to get: I am not only here to argue the strength of Scott's appeal. In case you are not aware (and maybe you should familiarize yourself with if you're going to hang around discussion boards like this one) - there are many phases and facets of freeing someone who has been wrongfully convicted. And one of those facets (especially in this case) is correcting the misinformation that is out there and hopefully helping to turn the tide of public opinion away from that guilty mentality (especially when it is based on SO much mis-information). And stopping people like YOU from regurgitating the same Nancy Grace crap over and over again.

I could not care less if YOU think Scott is guilty or what you think about how successful or unsuccessful his appeal will be. But people like you who aren't interested in the truth.....people like you who continue to spread mis-information about someone's case.....those close minded people who don't care about the truth because they have their minds made up......those people - THAT is what I don't get. Especially for someone like you - who has been on the this side - in the Amanda Knox case. I just don't get people like you...nor do I want to.

LOL - Graybill is NOT the only outlier. He's not an outlier at all. The Tenbrink brothers talking to each other about Laci confronting the burglars. The people who saw Laci walking. What you don't get is that in a Scott is innocent scenario - ALL of these people can be right. Servas is right. The people who saw Laci walking are right. Graybill is right. The Tenbrinks are right. For Scott to be guilty you have to dismiss everyone except Karen Servas. That's logical to you? Okaaayyyy.

Graybill isn't an outlier. He's the smoking gun. That's why his open gate information only appeared in one small blurb in a handwritten report. You know the police interviewed him later - and prepared reports. Yet there is nothing in there about the gate being open. There is a pattern in this case with exonerating evidence disappearing. No interview with Aponte. Aponte says he called the tipline multiple times but yet there is only one tip (guess they missed that one). Don't forget Mr. R who led Geragos to the Aponte tip. The woman that saw Laci at the warehouse....Brocchini admitted he left that information out of his report. Now the Graybill info.

On the flip side - the prosecution's case just doesn't hold together. It's ridiculous that you think Laci was dead on the 23rd when she was clearly alive and on the computer the morning of the 24th. But do you know why you have to think that? Because you know Scott didn't have time to do all that he would have had to do if he had killed her the morning of the 24th. The prosecution's case doesn't hold together.


Proof! that is what you should be worried about. You have no proof, no evidence to back up your claims. Do you understand what heresay evidence is and how it is inadmissible, Even with proper foundation Hersay evidence has problems! DO you understand that if I tell you something, that is heresay, if someone overhears me telling you something - that 3rd person heresay, If that third party tells someone else what they heard - that is 4th level heresay. Tenbrink is 4th level heresay at least, it has no evidentiary and no foundation. To base anything on this evidence is fantasy.

You can go on for ever about Aponte, the Defense had the information, decided for some reason to ignore it, probably out of strategy , because they had an unwilling witness or the value of the evidence would not stand up in court, either way, it di not just go missing!

Graybil is not a smoking gun, just means that he is either mistaken or the gate had another innocent reason for being open, I'm not even sure the Servas and Graybil are talking about the same gates. We certainly did not think that Amanda was guilty because her lamp was found in Meredith's room, it is an outlier that does not directly indicate guilt or innocence. What we do know, is that if taken out, there is no reason to believe that Laci/Conor were alive on Dec 24th. This is why this outlier is not evidence of anything. You can assume that it was Laci that opened the gate, but there is no evidence that she did. Is it possible someone else opened the gate....the answer is yes. or the more likely possibility that Graybil is mistaken, the Idea that an open gate in and of itself without any foundation is an expression of innocence for Scott is exactly the wishful thinking I am talking about. I would go so far as to say that like the Lamp in AK's case, the open gate evidence even if introduced in the primary trial would have had little effect on the outcome. The people who saw laci walking were all part of the initial trial, that evidence was of little value, and the Jury was wise to dismiss it.

Scott would have had all night! The prosecutions case held together, and that trial reached a verdict

There is no evidence that Laci was on the computer, there is computer activity, yes but that is all.

I am interested in the truth, I keep hoping I will here that in this forum, instead all we get is cut and paste articles and ridiculous speculation that is passed off as fact.

Your the one who is doing a dis-service to Scott, these weak speculative arguments do nothing to change public opinion about Scott's innocence.

You need to re-analize what exonerating evidence is, your definition is flawed.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:50 am

anonshy wrote:..........
I am interested in the truth, I keep hoping I will here that in this forum, instead all we get is cut and paste articles and ridiculous speculation that is passed off as fact..........

Anon


I cut and paste from the transcripts and the documents to provide some facts for the discussion. You, on the other hand, prefer to make up your own "facts" as you go along.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:10 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:..........
I am interested in the truth, I keep hoping I will here that in this forum, instead all we get is cut and paste articles and ridiculous speculation that is passed off as fact..........

Anon


I cut and paste from the transcripts and the documents to provide some facts for the discussion. You, on the other hand, prefer to make up your own "facts" as you go along.



That's rich coming from you.

This is just one of your ideas from up-thread:
Laci/Connor were frozen for months and then dumped in or around the bay - No evidence of Freezing!

I'm not making up anything, rather I am just analizing the evidence that has been stated - If there are multiple interpretations of the evidence, thats fine, but I have made up nothing. You on the other hand have made huge leaps of faith that are not supported by any evidence!

Here is what I can tell you:

There is zero evidence Laci encountered any Burglars on Dec 24th
There is zero evidence that Laci encountered burglars on the 24th
There is zero evidence Laci was abducted by any Burglars on Dec 24th
There is zero evidence that works to support that Graybil saw an open gate, Servas closed it when she brought Mac back
There is zero collborative evidence that supports Graybil recolecction of an open gate on Dec 24th
There is zero evidence Mackenzie was lose on the streets on two occasions on Dec 24th
There is zero credible evidence that Laci was alive on Dec 24th
There is zero evidence that the suspicious van or 3 men had anything to do with the burglary or Laci's abduction/murder
There is zero credible evidence of, or any foundation for any 4th party conversation by Todd, told by a third party, overheard by Aposte

This is the proverbial irony, I see nothing in any of your speculation that is indeed a fact in this case.

Any assumption of innocence based off of speculation, un-explored evidence or evidence without foundation can only be wrong!
If we use the AK Case as a guide, there is a secondary scenario of a lone Burglar turned killer, that is supported by the evidence, the only debate in that case was what the evidence meant to each side. The lack of AK/RS DNA, The broken Window, The abundance of RG DNA........This is all tangible evidence that someone other than AK/RS committed the crime. What you present for Scott's innocence is in the same arena as the speculative nonsense brought out in the press against Knox, Foxy Knoxy, Satanic Ritual, Failed Sex Game, Drug Fueled Rage. There is also a very strong tie in with the lamp, The fact that Amanda's lamp was in Meredith's locked room on the surface and the initial response, is that it is a smoking gun pointing to AK's guilt, but without the prosecution outlining and building a foundation for the evidence, the lamp really is just something unexplained, by both the defense and prosecution. I mean what does the lamp really mean when there is a complete lack of any evidence that Amanda was in Meredith's room. This is why, when your whole innocence scenario depends on the debated recolecction of a witness, who's statement is without foundation - An Open Gate, (has not been heard in court or been examined or cross-examined by anyone), you cant rely on this evidence, especially when there is other stronger evidence that runs counter to the speculative evidence you are presenting (Servas and her returning Mack and closing the gate, also the other locked gate). This is why even if the open gate had have been testified to in open court, I believe it is an outlier (just as the lamp in AK), without proper foundation it would have been given very little value by the jury.

Jane, this is independent thought, its based on evidence from the trial, and it deals with why I believe the classification of your speculation as actual evidence is wrong. I am interested in debate, not in the constant barrage of of cut and paste articles from a pro innocence site. (trust me, other than the direct transcripts, that PWC site is pure editorial on innocence). The problem with you and either your counter-part or your other alias, is that your really not here for debate, your trying to present your side, site unseen as the truth, and your not open to the possibility that your wrong, and certainly not hear to learn and participate in a discussion. You are failing in your agenda to change popular opinion on Scott's, anyone who loves Law and understands how evidence and procedure work, will almost always have to take the opposite stance you take, you force them into that position by your insistance that your speculation is fact. No one who understands law and evidence and who is open to debate is going to rubber stamp your ideas simply because you say they are true, like me I go back and look at the merits of the evidence based on where we are at (Guilty Verdict and a Decade later), the presumption of guilt intact (AK Guilt was never finalized and if it was, the direction of effort would have been much different), it becomes a Don't tell me what you think, Tell me what you can prove!



Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:21 am

Anonshy, the speculation that LSmith and I engage in is based on facts found in the transcripts, the documents, and various other reliable sources.

Your dismissal of what we have to say is based on nothing but your own guilt bias.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:53 am

anonshy wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Scott would have had all night! The prosecutions case held together, and that trial reached a verdict

There is no evidence that Laci was on the computer, there is computer activity, yes but that is all.

I am interested in the truth, I keep hoping I will here that in this forum, instead all we get is cut and paste articles and ridiculous speculation that is passed off as fact.

Your the one who is doing a dis-service to Scott, these weak speculative arguments do nothing to change public opinion about Scott's innocence.

You need to re-analize what exonerating evidence is, your definition is flawed.

Anon


It amazes me that people like you can have such a strong opinion of guilt when you are so clueless to the facts of the case.

Stop with the "the jury reached a verdict" nonsense. Maybe you should remind yourself of just what discussion board you are on.

So you think Scott, after having spent all night cleaning up after having murdered his wife and son, was on the computer the morning of December 24th shopping for a Gap fleece scarf, a garden weather vane and sunflower motif umbrella stand (Laci had a sunflower tattoo on her ankle) and checking their home email? So is your theory that he was trying to make it look like Laci was on the computer - knowing that the police would check the computer activity - on this same computer that he researched boat purchases and places to take his (supposedly secret) boat - including the Berkeley Marina? Or do you think he was just simply making it look like he was leisurely on the computer at home, knowing that they would check his computer activity, on the same computer that he researched boat purchases and places to take his (supposedly secret) boat - including the Berkeley Marina - but then never included being on the computer at home in the activities that he told the police he had done that morning?

Doesn't......hold......up.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:30 am

Anonshy, what do you know about the condition of the baby's body? How would you explain it?
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:35 am

lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Scott would have had all night! The prosecutions case held together, and that trial reached a verdict

There is no evidence that Laci was on the computer, there is computer activity, yes but that is all.

I am interested in the truth, I keep hoping I will here that in this forum, instead all we get is cut and paste articles and ridiculous speculation that is passed off as fact.

Your the one who is doing a dis-service to Scott, these weak speculative arguments do nothing to change public opinion about Scott's innocence.

You need to re-analize what exonerating evidence is, your definition is flawed.

Anon


It amazes me that people like you can have such a strong opinion of guilt when you are so clueless to the facts of the case.

Stop with the "the jury reached a verdict" nonsense. Maybe you should remind yourself of just what discussion board you are on.

So you think Scott, after having spent all night cleaning up after having murdered his wife and son, was on the computer the morning of December 24th shopping for a Gap fleece scarf, a garden weather vane and sunflower motif umbrella stand (Laci had a sunflower tattoo on her ankle) and checking their home email? So is your theory that he was trying to make it look like Laci was on the computer - knowing that the police would check the computer activity - on this same computer that he researched boat purchases and places to take his (supposedly secret) boat - including the Berkeley Marina? Or do you think he was just simply making it look like he was leisurely on the computer at home, knowing that they would check his computer activity, on the same computer that he researched boat purchases and places to take his (supposedly secret) boat - including the Berkeley Marina - but then never included being on the computer at home in the activities that he told the police he had done that morning?

Doesn't......hold......up.


Holds up moreso than anything you have come up with. It fits with the planning and level of detail necessary it would take to pull off this type of crime, it fits with Scott's IQ and his level of narcissism exhibited by his affair. I think he made some mistakes along the way in his rush, but yes, given everything we know about Scott and his other deceptions and mind-set, it is reasonable to assume that he would be cunning enough to consider the usage of the computer. Given his initial statement to Servas in regards to playing golf, I think it shows he was at least conflicted about which story to use, Golf or Fishing. What we do know is that the first communication with Servas was golf, so the Tide charts would not have been a concern should he have continued with that Alibi, and any activity remotely contributable to Lacy on the 24 regardless of his Alibi would remove suspicion.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:52 am

jane wrote:Anonshy, what do you know about the condition of the baby's body? How would you explain it?


What I know about Conor is what has been discussed here and from the parts of the trial transcripts I have been able to read. The facts as I know them are:

His body was degraded but not nearly to the extent of his mother
He had some lose debris around his neck in some form of nylon string or fiber tape
His scull was degraded to the point where some of the normal fetal measurement regarding age where not possible
Body had been submerged for some time
Was Found on a breakwater / floodplane in the same geographical Berkley Marina area as his mother was found.

I would explain his condition in this manner:
Laci and Connor were in the water for many months as was the testimony at the trial.
Conor remained in the womb posthumously for as long as his mothers body could hold him.
Once removed from the womb, was subject to the same tidal and other forces Laci was subjected to for the entire submersion
The differences in body mass and tidal forces led to the different locations where their remains were found.
I believe that this evaluation is supported by the evidence given at trial.

What I am also sure of, is he was not frozen, as you contend up-thread

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:08 am

anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Scott would have had all night! The prosecutions case held together, and that trial reached a verdict

There is no evidence that Laci was on the computer, there is computer activity, yes but that is all.

I am interested in the truth, I keep hoping I will here that in this forum, instead all we get is cut and paste articles and ridiculous speculation that is passed off as fact.

Your the one who is doing a dis-service to Scott, these weak speculative arguments do nothing to change public opinion about Scott's innocence.

You need to re-analize what exonerating evidence is, your definition is flawed.

Anon


It amazes me that people like you can have such a strong opinion of guilt when you are so clueless to the facts of the case.

Stop with the "the jury reached a verdict" nonsense. Maybe you should remind yourself of just what discussion board you are on.

So you think Scott, after having spent all night cleaning up after having murdered his wife and son, was on the computer the morning of December 24th shopping for a Gap fleece scarf, a garden weather vane and sunflower motif umbrella stand (Laci had a sunflower tattoo on her ankle) and checking their home email? So is your theory that he was trying to make it look like Laci was on the computer - knowing that the police would check the computer activity - on this same computer that he researched boat purchases and places to take his (supposedly secret) boat - including the Berkeley Marina? Or do you think he was just simply making it look like he was leisurely on the computer at home, knowing that they would check his computer activity, on the same computer that he researched boat purchases and places to take his (supposedly secret) boat - including the Berkeley Marina - but then never included being on the computer at home in the activities that he told the police he had done that morning?

Doesn't......hold......up.


Holds up moreso than anything you have come up with. It fits with the planning and level of detail necessary it would take to pull off this type of crime, it fits with Scott's IQ and his level of narcissism exhibited by his affair. I think he made some mistakes along the way in his rush, but yes, given everything we know about Scott and his other deceptions and mind-set, it is reasonable to assume that he would be cunning enough to consider the usage of the computer. Given his initial statement to Servas in regards to playing golf, I think it shows he was at least conflicted about which story to use, Golf or Fishing. What we do know is that the first communication with Servas was golf, so the Tide charts would not have been a concern should he have continued with that Alibi, and any activity remotely contributable to Lacy on the 24 regardless of his Alibi would remove suspicion.

Anon


Really?

I love how when people who think Scott is guilty can't explain something it's "Scott was stupid" or "He made a mistake".

1. Scott never told Servas he was golfing. He told his sister-in-law - Amy - the night of the 23rd that he planned on golfing on the 24th.

2. The tide charts would not have been a concern if he had continued with the golfing alibi? Really? So he was only keeping this boat a secret from Laci - he didn't care on 12/9 whether or not the MPD found out he had bought a boat? You think Scott thought that he would be put under so much scrutiny that the MPD would want to search his computers but he thought the MPD would just ignore the fact that he had been searching information on places to put a boat in the water? So if he was on the computer that morning specifically to make it look like Laci was on the computer - why didn't he tell the police Laci was on the computer that morning? Let me guess - you think he forgot this very important detail of his alibi? Really?

And you think that he had Laci's dead body in the house for at least 12 hours - yet there were no cadaver dog hits in the house? You - who have so much faith in dog tracking - think Laci's live scent could be detected at the marina - in the outside windy conditions - on December 28th - yet a cadaver dog couldn't detect Laci's cadaver scent in the house on December 27th? Really?

And if Scott's plan on December 9th was to tell everyone that he was golfing, and Scott's plan on December 23rd when he talked to Amy was to use the golfing alibi, why did he purchase a two day fishing license on 12/20/02 - and pay for it with a credit card?
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:15 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy, what do you know about the condition of the baby's body? How would you explain it?


What I know about Conor is what has been discussed here and from the parts of the trial transcripts I have been able to read. The facts as I know them are:

His body was degraded but not nearly to the extent of his mother
He had some lose debris around his neck in some form of nylon string or fiber tape
His scull was degraded to the point where some of the normal fetal measurement regarding age where not possible
Body had been submerged for some time
Was Found on a breakwater / floodplane in the same geographical Berkley Marina area as his mother was found.

I would explain his condition in this manner:
Laci and Connor were in the water for many months as was the testimony at the trial.
Conor remained in the womb posthumously for as long as his mothers body could hold him.
Once removed from the womb, was subject to the same tidal and other forces Laci was subjected to for the entire submersion
The differences in body mass and tidal forces led to the different locations where their remains were found.
I believe that this evaluation is supported by the evidence given at trial.

What I am also sure of, is he was not frozen, as you contend up-thread

Anon


What do you know about the condition of Laci's body? How do you explain the difference in the conditions of the bodies?
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Feb 16, 2017 12:24 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy, what do you know about the condition of the baby's body? How would you explain it?


What I know about Conor is what has been discussed here and from the parts of the trial transcripts I have been able to read. The facts as I know them are:

His body was degraded but not nearly to the extent of his mother
He had some lose debris around his neck in some form of nylon string or fiber tape
His scull was degraded to the point where some of the normal fetal measurement regarding age where not possible
Body had been submerged for some time
Was Found on a breakwater / floodplane in the same geographical Berkley Marina area as his mother was found.

I would explain his condition in this manner:
Laci and Connor were in the water for many months as was the testimony at the trial.
Conor remained in the womb posthumously for as long as his mothers body could hold him.
Once removed from the womb, was subject to the same tidal and other forces Laci was subjected to for the entire submersion
The differences in body mass and tidal forces led to the different locations where their remains were found.
I believe that this evaluation is supported by the evidence given at trial.

What I am also sure of, is he was not frozen, as you contend up-thread

Anon


What do you know about the condition of Laci's body? How do you explain the difference in the conditions of the bodies?


That is explained in my previous answer, She was subject to tidal forces and animal feeding from the onset and for a much longer time than the baby who was protected in the Womb

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Feb 16, 2017 12:46 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy, what do you know about the condition of the baby's body? How would you explain it?


What I know about Conor is what has been discussed here and from the parts of the trial transcripts I have been able to read. The facts as I know them are:

His body was degraded but not nearly to the extent of his mother
He had some lose debris around his neck in some form of nylon string or fiber tape
His scull was degraded to the point where some of the normal fetal measurement regarding age where not possible
Body had been submerged for some time
Was Found on a breakwater / floodplane in the same geographical Berkley Marina area as his mother was found.

I would explain his condition in this manner:
Laci and Connor were in the water for many months as was the testimony at the trial.
Conor remained in the womb posthumously for as long as his mothers body could hold him.
Once removed from the womb, was subject to the same tidal and other forces Laci was subjected to for the entire submersion
The differences in body mass and tidal forces led to the different locations where their remains were found.
I believe that this evaluation is supported by the evidence given at trial.

What I am also sure of, is he was not frozen, as you contend up-thread

Anon


What do you know about the condition of Laci's body? How do you explain the difference in the conditions of the bodies?


That is explained in my previous answer, She was subject to tidal forces and animal feeding from the onset and for a much longer time than the baby who was protected in the Womb

Anon


And you really believe that?? That a pregnant uterus filled with blood vessels was not subjected to the same kind of decomposition and animal feeding that Laci's body was?
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Feb 16, 2017 12:50 pm

lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Scott would have had all night! The prosecutions case held together, and that trial reached a verdict

There is no evidence that Laci was on the computer, there is computer activity, yes but that is all.

I am interested in the truth, I keep hoping I will here that in this forum, instead all we get is cut and paste articles and ridiculous speculation that is passed off as fact.

Your the one who is doing a dis-service to Scott, these weak speculative arguments do nothing to change public opinion about Scott's innocence.

You need to re-analize what exonerating evidence is, your definition is flawed.

Anon


It amazes me that people like you can have such a strong opinion of guilt when you are so clueless to the facts of the case.

Stop with the "the jury reached a verdict" nonsense. Maybe you should remind yourself of just what discussion board you are on.

So you think Scott, after having spent all night cleaning up after having murdered his wife and son, was on the computer the morning of December 24th shopping for a Gap fleece scarf, a garden weather vane and sunflower motif umbrella stand (Laci had a sunflower tattoo on her ankle) and checking their home email? So is your theory that he was trying to make it look like Laci was on the computer - knowing that the police would check the computer activity - on this same computer that he researched boat purchases and places to take his (supposedly secret) boat - including the Berkeley Marina? Or do you think he was just simply making it look like he was leisurely on the computer at home, knowing that they would check his computer activity, on the same computer that he researched boat purchases and places to take his (supposedly secret) boat - including the Berkeley Marina - but then never included being on the computer at home in the activities that he told the police he had done that morning?

Doesn't......hold......up.


Holds up moreso than anything you have come up with. It fits with the planning and level of detail necessary it would take to pull off this type of crime, it fits with Scott's IQ and his level of narcissism exhibited by his affair. I think he made some mistakes along the way in his rush, but yes, given everything we know about Scott and his other deceptions and mind-set, it is reasonable to assume that he would be cunning enough to consider the usage of the computer. Given his initial statement to Servas in regards to playing golf, I think it shows he was at least conflicted about which story to use, Golf or Fishing. What we do know is that the first communication with Servas was golf, so the Tide charts would not have been a concern should he have continued with that Alibi, and any activity remotely contributable to Lacy on the 24 regardless of his Alibi would remove suspicion.

Anon


Really?

I love how when people who think Scott is guilty can't explain something it's "Scott was stupid" or "He made a mistake".

1. Scott never told Servas he was golfing. He told his sister-in-law - Amy - the night of the 23rd that he planned on golfing on the 24th.

2. The tide charts would not have been a concern if he had continued with the golfing alibi? Really? So he was only keeping this boat a secret from Laci - he didn't care on 12/9 whether or not the MPD found out he had bought a boat? You think Scott thought that he would be put under so much scrutiny that the MPD would want to search his computers but he thought the MPD would just ignore the fact that he had been searching information on places to put a boat in the water? So if he was on the computer that morning specifically to make it look like Laci was on the computer - why didn't he tell the police Laci was on the computer that morning? Let me guess - you think he forgot this very important detail of his alibi? Really?

And you think that he had Laci's dead body in the house for at least 12 hours - yet there were no cadaver dog hits in the house? You - who have so much faith in dog tracking - think Laci's live scent could be detected at the marina - in the outside windy conditions - on December 28th - yet a cadaver dog couldn't detect Laci's cadaver scent in the house on December 27th? Really?

And if Scott's plan on December 9th was to tell everyone that he was golfing, and Scott's plan on December 23rd when he talked to Amy was to use the golfing alibi, why did he purchase a two day fishing license on 12/20/02 - and pay for it with a credit card?


I think he would have removed all of the internet logs if he had remembered to do so, Amy, Servas, does not really matter, if he already bought the marina pass and told his sister in law that he was going golfing, same result.

I have one question for you I would like answered. What evidence do you have that Laci encountered Burglars on Dec 24th?

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:11 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy, what do you know about the condition of the baby's body? How would you explain it?


What I know about Conor is what has been discussed here and from the parts of the trial transcripts I have been able to read. The facts as I know them are:

His body was degraded but not nearly to the extent of his mother
He had some lose debris around his neck in some form of nylon string or fiber tape
His scull was degraded to the point where some of the normal fetal measurement regarding age where not possible
Body had been submerged for some time
Was Found on a breakwater / floodplane in the same geographical Berkley Marina area as his mother was found.

I would explain his condition in this manner:
Laci and Connor were in the water for many months as was the testimony at the trial.
Conor remained in the womb posthumously for as long as his mothers body could hold him.
Once removed from the womb, was subject to the same tidal and other forces Laci was subjected to for the entire submersion
The differences in body mass and tidal forces led to the different locations where their remains were found.
I believe that this evaluation is supported by the evidence given at trial.

What I am also sure of, is he was not frozen, as you contend up-thread

Anon


What do you know about the condition of Laci's body? How do you explain the difference in the conditions of the bodies?


That is explained in my previous answer, She was subject to tidal forces and animal feeding from the onset and for a much longer time than the baby who was protected in the Womb

Anon


And you really believe that?? That a pregnant uterus filled with blood vessels was not subjected to the same kind of decomposition and animal feeding that Laci's body was?


I do believe that, and it matches the condition of the bodies, The skin, Subcutaneous layers, Muscle layers, Diaphram, amniotic sac and placenta all aided in preserving the baby to a level not afforded to the mother. Babies in utero would be coated in substances designed to protect skin form damage (vernix & lanugo), the baby had a lot more going to protect it than the mother, The baby in my opinion degraded from the inside out, brain contents liquified etc.....What I have alwasy wanted to know is if there was ever any chemical analysis of the babies lungs to determine if surfactant ever changed the makeup of the lungs lining. I would also like to know the status of meconium in the rectal tract, it is sterile, bacteria free and too difficult to be completely removed.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:18 pm

There are two lines of discussion on this thread: one that deals with issues raised by the appellate documents, one that deals with what actually happened to Laci and the baby based on the facts that are available to us.

Some of the things we speculate about have not been raised in the appeal. They may or may not be raised at some point in the future--i.e., in the investigation leading up to the next trial, or when Scott is exonerated and the actual perpetrators are investigated.

By the way, we learned today from the California Supreme Court that the Attorney General's response to Scott's habeas brief will be filed by April 24, 2017, about 8 months earlier than anticipated. This is good news!
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Sahra L » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:23 pm

Anon,
Scott told Amy on the 23rd he would be golfing the next day. He also told his neighbor and a relative when he returned home from the bay that he had been golfing.
Sahra L
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:41 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:49 pm

anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Scott would have had all night! The prosecutions case held together, and that trial reached a verdict

There is no evidence that Laci was on the computer, there is computer activity, yes but that is all.

I am interested in the truth, I keep hoping I will here that in this forum, instead all we get is cut and paste articles and ridiculous speculation that is passed off as fact.

Your the one who is doing a dis-service to Scott, these weak speculative arguments do nothing to change public opinion about Scott's innocence.

You need to re-analize what exonerating evidence is, your definition is flawed.

Anon


It amazes me that people like you can have such a strong opinion of guilt when you are so clueless to the facts of the case.

Stop with the "the jury reached a verdict" nonsense. Maybe you should remind yourself of just what discussion board you are on.

So you think Scott, after having spent all night cleaning up after having murdered his wife and son, was on the computer the morning of December 24th shopping for a Gap fleece scarf, a garden weather vane and sunflower motif umbrella stand (Laci had a sunflower tattoo on her ankle) and checking their home email? So is your theory that he was trying to make it look like Laci was on the computer - knowing that the police would check the computer activity - on this same computer that he researched boat purchases and places to take his (supposedly secret) boat - including the Berkeley Marina? Or do you think he was just simply making it look like he was leisurely on the computer at home, knowing that they would check his computer activity, on the same computer that he researched boat purchases and places to take his (supposedly secret) boat - including the Berkeley Marina - but then never included being on the computer at home in the activities that he told the police he had done that morning?

Doesn't......hold......up.


Holds up moreso than anything you have come up with. It fits with the planning and level of detail necessary it would take to pull off this type of crime, it fits with Scott's IQ and his level of narcissism exhibited by his affair. I think he made some mistakes along the way in his rush, but yes, given everything we know about Scott and his other deceptions and mind-set, it is reasonable to assume that he would be cunning enough to consider the usage of the computer. Given his initial statement to Servas in regards to playing golf, I think it shows he was at least conflicted about which story to use, Golf or Fishing. What we do know is that the first communication with Servas was golf, so the Tide charts would not have been a concern should he have continued with that Alibi, and any activity remotely contributable to Lacy on the 24 regardless of his Alibi would remove suspicion.

Anon


Really?

I love how when people who think Scott is guilty can't explain something it's "Scott was stupid" or "He made a mistake".

1. Scott never told Servas he was golfing. He told his sister-in-law - Amy - the night of the 23rd that he planned on golfing on the 24th.

2. The tide charts would not have been a concern if he had continued with the golfing alibi? Really? So he was only keeping this boat a secret from Laci - he didn't care on 12/9 whether or not the MPD found out he had bought a boat? You think Scott thought that he would be put under so much scrutiny that the MPD would want to search his computers but he thought the MPD would just ignore the fact that he had been searching information on places to put a boat in the water? So if he was on the computer that morning specifically to make it look like Laci was on the computer - why didn't he tell the police Laci was on the computer that morning? Let me guess - you think he forgot this very important detail of his alibi? Really?

And you think that he had Laci's dead body in the house for at least 12 hours - yet there were no cadaver dog hits in the house? You - who have so much faith in dog tracking - think Laci's live scent could be detected at the marina - in the outside windy conditions - on December 28th - yet a cadaver dog couldn't detect Laci's cadaver scent in the house on December 27th? Really?

And if Scott's plan on December 9th was to tell everyone that he was golfing, and Scott's plan on December 23rd when he talked to Amy was to use the golfing alibi, why did he purchase a two day fishing license on 12/20/02 - and pay for it with a credit card?


I think he would have removed all of the internet logs if he had remembered to do so, Amy, Servas, does not really matter, if he already bought the marina pass and told his sister in law that he was going golfing, same result.

I have one question for you I would like answered. What evidence do you have that Laci encountered Burglars on Dec 24th?

Anon


No, no, no. Deflection isn't going to work here. We're not done.

So now he FORGOT to remove the internet logs regarding the boat purchase and boat ramp launches. What do you mean same result? How so?

Here's your theory:

December 9th - Scott researches (secret) boat sales and boat launch ramps on the home computer at home while Laci is there. Doesn't matter if police see this because his - alibi is golfing. Or now the alternative explanation - he intended to delete these internet files but FORGOT. Alibi = golfing?

December 20th - Scott purchases a 2 day fishing license. Alibi = fishing?

December 23rd - Scott tells Amy he is going golfing. Intends to kill his wife that night - so he invites Amy over for pizza.
Alibi = golfing?

December 24th - Scott gets on the home computer to make it look like Laci is still alive - but FORGETS to tell the police that he saw Laci on the computer that morning as part of his alibi.

December 24th - Scott goes to the marina, obtains a parking receipt and keeps it, calls Laci from his cell and says "leaving Berkeley", purchases gas with credit card. Alibi = fishing?

Really? Explain to me again why Scott would buy a fishing license (when he certainly didn't need one to take a boat out and dump a body) when supposedly his intentions before and after that were to give a golfing alibi?
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:51 pm

jane wrote:There are two lines of discussion on this thread: one that deals with issues raised by the appellate documents, one that deals with what actually happened to Laci and the baby based on the facts that are available to us.

Some of the things we speculate about have not been raised in the appeal. They may or may not be raised at some point in the future--i.e., in the investigation leading up to the next trial, or when Scott is exonerated and the actual perpetrators are investigated.

By the way, we learned today from the California Supreme Court that the Attorney General's response to Scott's habeas brief will be filed by April 24, 2017, about 8 months earlier than anticipated. This is good news!


That is good news in terms of the process, at minimum I would like to see the death penalty commuted to life. I am not of the same opinion on the other aspects, anticipating a new investigation or a new trail.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:05 pm

Sorry not up to you to determine if I'm done! - Scott's game was misdirection, anything he could do to minimize suspicion. The computer logs were a result of forensic scanning, So to be fair, I don't know what was deleted and what was found at the raw file level. Scott very well may have deleted portions of the history and they were picked up by other means than being directly observable. Why he told Amy Golf when he bought a fishing pass, I can't tell you why Scott did that, but it does match a pattern that repeats itself, he lies until he can't!

Now please answer this question - What evidence do you have that Laci encountered Burglars on Dec 24th?

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Feb 16, 2017 3:42 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:And you really believe that?? That a pregnant uterus filled with blood vessels was not subjected to the same kind of decomposition and animal feeding that Laci's body was?


I do believe that, and it matches the condition of the bodies, The skin, Subcutaneous layers, Muscle layers, Diaphram, amniotic sac and placenta all aided in preserving the baby to a level not afforded to the mother. Babies in utero would be coated in substances designed to protect skin form damage (vernix & lanugo), the baby had a lot more going to protect it than the mother, The baby in my opinion degraded from the inside out, brain contents liquified etc.....What I have alwasy wanted to know is if there was ever any chemical analysis of the babies lungs to determine if surfactant ever changed the makeup of the lungs lining. I would also like to know the status of meconium in the rectal tract, it is sterile, bacteria free and too difficult to be completely removed.

Anon


It's amazing what people will believe when the medical examiner testifies in support of the prosecution case, no matter how absurd it is. All of Laci's internal organs, including those close in proximity to the pregnant uterus, were missing as a result of decomposition and animal feeding. A pregnant uterus subjected to the same elements would be in the same condition. It has no magical properties that would protect it from decomposition or animal feeding.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:01 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:And you really believe that?? That a pregnant uterus filled with blood vessels was not subjected to the same kind of decomposition and animal feeding that Laci's body was?


I do believe that, and it matches the condition of the bodies, The skin, Subcutaneous layers, Muscle layers, Diaphram, amniotic sac and placenta all aided in preserving the baby to a level not afforded to the mother. Babies in utero would be coated in substances designed to protect skin form damage (vernix & lanugo), the baby had a lot more going to protect it than the mother, The baby in my opinion degraded from the inside out, brain contents liquified etc.....What I have alwasy wanted to know is if there was ever any chemical analysis of the babies lungs to determine if surfactant ever changed the makeup of the lungs lining. I would also like to know the status of meconium in the rectal tract, it is sterile, bacteria free and too difficult to be completely removed.

Anon


It's amazing what people will believe when the medical examiner testifies in support of the prosecution case, no matter how absurd it is. All of Laci's internal organs, including those close in proximity to the pregnant uterus, were missing as a result of decomposition and animal feeding. A pregnant uterus subjected to the same elements would be in the same condition. It has no magical properties that would protect it from decomposition or animal feeding.


This is just further proof that Conor was protected for some time. The womb is deep, nestled in the pelvis, Bodily organs, intestines would all have be forced upwards, as soon as conner was ejected, all of these organs would be displaced from the body. Conor could have remained attached by the ambilical for some time before breaking free, I remember reports of a storm a few days before the bodies were found, this could have been the trigger. There is a big difference between decomposition and animal feeding, you assume a level of decomposition on organs that were never found and correlate that back to how the uterus should be. So when you find Laci's liver and it is in better shape then her uterus, then you would have an argument. The fact that Laci's uterus was in better shape or intact is further proof that that part of her internal structure was protected.

It is amazing what people will ignore to try and prove someone innocent.


Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:31 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:And you really believe that?? That a pregnant uterus filled with blood vessels was not subjected to the same kind of decomposition and animal feeding that Laci's body was?


I do believe that, and it matches the condition of the bodies, The skin, Subcutaneous layers, Muscle layers, Diaphram, amniotic sac and placenta all aided in preserving the baby to a level not afforded to the mother. Babies in utero would be coated in substances designed to protect skin form damage (vernix & lanugo), the baby had a lot more going to protect it than the mother, The baby in my opinion degraded from the inside out, brain contents liquified etc.....What I have alwasy wanted to know is if there was ever any chemical analysis of the babies lungs to determine if surfactant ever changed the makeup of the lungs lining. I would also like to know the status of meconium in the rectal tract, it is sterile, bacteria free and too difficult to be completely removed.

Anon


It's amazing what people will believe when the medical examiner testifies in support of the prosecution case, no matter how absurd it is. All of Laci's internal organs, including those close in proximity to the pregnant uterus, were missing as a result of decomposition and animal feeding. A pregnant uterus subjected to the same elements would be in the same condition. It has no magical properties that would protect it from decomposition or animal feeding.


This is just further proof that Conor was protected for some time. The womb is deep, nestled in the pelvis, Bodily organs, intestines would all have be forced upwards, as soon as conner was ejected, all of these organs would be displaced from the body. Conor could have remained attached by the ambilical for some time before breaking free, I remember reports of a storm a few days before the bodies were found, this could have been the trigger. There is a big difference between decomposition and animal feeding, you assume a level of decomposition on organs that were never found and correlate that back to how the uterus should be. So when you find Laci's liver and it is in better shape then her uterus, then you would have an argument. The fact that Laci's uterus was in better shape or intact is further proof that that part of her internal structure was protected.

It is amazing what people will ignore to try and prove someone innocent.


Anon


A pregnant uterus is high in the abdomen and would have been subjected to the same processes as the rest of Laci's internal organs which were missing as a result of decomposition and animal feeding. The rest of your post is incomprehensible and not worth a reply. Have you read Haglund's book, The Postmorten Fate of Human Remains? I suppose the defense will have to call someone like him to testify since people like you have no common sense.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:25 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:And you really believe that?? That a pregnant uterus filled with blood vessels was not subjected to the same kind of decomposition and animal feeding that Laci's body was?


I do believe that, and it matches the condition of the bodies, The skin, Subcutaneous layers, Muscle layers, Diaphram, amniotic sac and placenta all aided in preserving the baby to a level not afforded to the mother. Babies in utero would be coated in substances designed to protect skin form damage (vernix & lanugo), the baby had a lot more going to protect it than the mother, The baby in my opinion degraded from the inside out, brain contents liquified etc.....What I have alwasy wanted to know is if there was ever any chemical analysis of the babies lungs to determine if surfactant ever changed the makeup of the lungs lining. I would also like to know the status of meconium in the rectal tract, it is sterile, bacteria free and too difficult to be completely removed.

Anon


It's amazing what people will believe when the medical examiner testifies in support of the prosecution case, no matter how absurd it is. All of Laci's internal organs, including those close in proximity to the pregnant uterus, were missing as a result of decomposition and animal feeding. A pregnant uterus subjected to the same elements would be in the same condition. It has no magical properties that would protect it from decomposition or animal feeding.


This is just further proof that Conor was protected for some time. The womb is deep, nestled in the pelvis, Bodily organs, intestines would all have be forced upwards, as soon as conner was ejected, all of these organs would be displaced from the body. Conor could have remained attached by the ambilical for some time before breaking free, I remember reports of a storm a few days before the bodies were found, this could have been the trigger. There is a big difference between decomposition and animal feeding, you assume a level of decomposition on organs that were never found and correlate that back to how the uterus should be. So when you find Laci's liver and it is in better shape then her uterus, then you would have an argument. The fact that Laci's uterus was in better shape or intact is further proof that that part of her internal structure was protected.

It is amazing what people will ignore to try and prove someone innocent.


Anon


A pregnant uterus is high in the abdomen and would have been subjected to the same processes as the rest of Laci's internal organs which were missing as a result of decomposition and animal feeding. The rest of your post is incomprehensible and not worth a reply. Have you read Haglund's book, The Postmorten Fate of Human Remains? I suppose the defense will have to call someone like him to testify since people like you have no common sense.


Jane you live in a word were Scott Peterson is innocent, that is not reality, nothing anyone says will change your opinion.

The placenta would be well up, the uterus remains in the hip/pelvic area, the cervix at the end of the uterus is deep at the pelvic floor, never thought I would be debating well established biology. If you think otherwise, good for you. The fact is, if at some point Laci's abdomen spit, organs above the diaphragm, intestines, liver ect... Would have nothing to hold them in, the would spill out easily, as they were fed upon or with tidal,forces, it would end up pulling everything that is attached by ligatures out of the body.

I know your tactics, your trying to deflect change the message that you don't want others to see, that's fine, but it is very transparent.

If my message was based on fantasy and speculation, woul probably take the same tact and jus start attaking everything and avoid direct questions, I have answered your questions based on facts, everyone knows that the large intestines, small,intestines, stomach, liver are very loose in the body cavity,,if you want to deny this fact as I said that's fine, you have your opinion that is not supported by facts or reality, you project your speculation as fact, you are showing a lack of grasp for reality,

Good luck to,you and your aliases, hijacking this thread with pure fantasy, you do a discredit to Scott and his cause,,with your weak-ass arguments

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:47 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
It's amazing what people will believe when the medical examiner testifies in support of the prosecution case, no matter how absurd it is. All of Laci's internal organs, including those close in proximity to the pregnant uterus, were missing as a result of decomposition and animal feeding. A pregnant uterus subjected to the same elements would be in the same condition. It has no magical properties that would protect it from decomposition or animal feeding.


This is just further proof that Conor was protected for some time. The womb is deep, nestled in the pelvis, Bodily organs, intestines would all have be forced upwards, as soon as conner was ejected, all of these organs would be displaced from the body. Conor could have remained attached by the ambilical for some time before breaking free, I remember reports of a storm a few days before the bodies were found, this could have been the trigger. There is a big difference between decomposition and animal feeding, you assume a level of decomposition on organs that were never found and correlate that back to how the uterus should be. So when you find Laci's liver and it is in better shape then her uterus, then you would have an argument. The fact that Laci's uterus was in better shape or intact is further proof that that part of her internal structure was protected.

It is amazing what people will ignore to try and prove someone innocent.


Anon


A pregnant uterus is high in the abdomen and would have been subjected to the same processes as the rest of Laci's internal organs which were missing as a result of decomposition and animal feeding. The rest of your post is incomprehensible and not worth a reply. Have you read Haglund's book, The Postmorten Fate of Human Remains? I suppose the defense will have to call someone like him to testify since people like you have no common sense.


Jane you live in a word were Scott Peterson is innocent, that is not reality, nothing anyone says will change your opinion.

The placenta would be well up, the uterus remains in the hip/pelvic area, the cervix at the end of the uterus is deep at the pelvic floor, never thought I would be debating well established biology. If you think otherwise, good for you. The fact is, if at some point Laci's abdomen spit, organs above the diaphragm, intestines, liver ect... Would have nothing to hold them in, the would spill out easily, as they were fed upon or with tidal,forces, it would end up pulling everything that is attached by ligatures out of the body.

I know your tactics, your trying to deflect change the message that you don't want others to see, that's fine, but it is very transparent.

If my message was based on fantasy and speculation, woul probably take the same tact and jus start attaking everything and avoid direct questions, I have answered your questions based on facts, everyone knows that the large intestines, small,intestines, stomach, liver are very loose in the body cavity,,if you want to deny this fact as I said that's fine, you have your opinion that is not supported by facts or reality, you project your speculation as fact, you are showing a lack of grasp for reality,

Good luck to,you and your aliases, hijacking this thread with pure fantasy, you do a discredit to Scott and his cause,,with your weak-ass arguments

Anon


This is hilarious. :roll eyes:
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:04 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
It's amazing what people will believe when the medical examiner testifies in support of the prosecution case, no matter how absurd it is. All of Laci's internal organs, including those close in proximity to the pregnant uterus, were missing as a result of decomposition and animal feeding. A pregnant uterus subjected to the same elements would be in the same condition. It has no magical properties that would protect it from decomposition or animal feeding.


This is just further proof that Conor was protected for some time. The womb is deep, nestled in the pelvis, Bodily organs, intestines would all have be forced upwards, as soon as conner was ejected, all of these organs would be displaced from the body. Conor could have remained attached by the ambilical for some time before breaking free, I remember reports of a storm a few days before the bodies were found, this could have been the trigger. There is a big difference between decomposition and animal feeding, you assume a level of decomposition on organs that were never found and correlate that back to how the uterus should be. So when you find Laci's liver and it is in better shape then her uterus, then you would have an argument. The fact that Laci's uterus was in better shape or intact is further proof that that part of her internal structure was protected.

It is amazing what people will ignore to try and prove someone innocent.


Anon


A pregnant uterus is high in the abdomen and would have been subjected to the same processes as the rest of Laci's internal organs which were missing as a result of decomposition and animal feeding. The rest of your post is incomprehensible and not worth a reply. Have you read Haglund's book, The Postmorten Fate of Human Remains? I suppose the defense will have to call someone like him to testify since people like you have no common sense.


Jane you live in a word were Scott Peterson is innocent, that is not reality, nothing anyone says will change your opinion.

The placenta would be well up, the uterus remains in the hip/pelvic area, the cervix at the end of the uterus is deep at the pelvic floor, never thought I would be debating well established biology. If you think otherwise, good for you. The fact is, if at some point Laci's abdomen spit, organs above the diaphragm, intestines, liver ect... Would have nothing to hold them in, the would spill out easily, as they were fed upon or with tidal,forces, it would end up pulling everything that is attached by ligatures out of the body.

I know your tactics, your trying to deflect change the message that you don't want others to see, that's fine, but it is very transparent.

If my message was based on fantasy and speculation, woul probably take the same tact and jus start attaking everything and avoid direct questions, I have answered your questions based on facts, everyone knows that the large intestines, small,intestines, stomach, liver are very loose in the body cavity,,if you want to deny this fact as I said that's fine, you have your opinion that is not supported by facts or reality, you project your speculation as fact, you are showing a lack of grasp for reality,

Good luck to,you and your aliases, hijacking this thread with pure fantasy, you do a discredit to Scott and his cause,,with your weak-ass arguments

Anon


This is hilarious. :roll eyes:


Great re-tort Jane, your really adding value here, same as always.

I will ask you the same question I asked your other alias: What evidence is there, that Laci encountered burglars on December 24th?

What is your take on the Difference in Conor's preservation compared to Laci, at one point you determined he was frozen, what is your most recent stance?

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:46 am

Anonshy posted: The placenta would be well up, the uterus remains in the hip/pelvic area...

Not only do you misstate the facts of the case, you now have misrepresented the anatomy of a pregnant woman.

This is a picture of a fetus in the uterus at 33 weeks gestation. Notice the height of the uterus, several inches above the navel. Also notice that the placenta is inside the uterus.

Image
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:20 pm

jane wrote:Anonshy posted: The placenta would be well up, the uterus remains in the hip/pelvic area...

Not only do you misstate the facts of the case, you now have misrepresented the anatomy of a pregnant woman.

This is a picture of a fetus in the uterus at 33 weeks gestation. Notice the height of the uterus, several inches above the navel. Also notice that the placenta is inside the uterus.

Image


Well you tell me Jane, how the uterus could be intact and less effected than the other organs, if The baby was no longer inside the mother. the uterus (fundus) had worn away or been eaten away establishing Conor's exit point, this just goes to further the point that Conot was protected. My apologies on the Anatomy and my mis-classification of the uterus and its sections, the fundus (top portion of uterus outside the pelvis) was what I was referring to and not the entire Uterine structure.


Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:46 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy posted: The placenta would be well up, the uterus remains in the hip/pelvic area...

Not only do you misstate the facts of the case, you now have misrepresented the anatomy of a pregnant woman.

This is a picture of a fetus in the uterus at 33 weeks gestation. Notice the height of the uterus, several inches above the navel. Also notice that the placenta is inside the uterus.

Image


Well you tell me Jane, how the uterus could be intact and less effected than the other organs, if The baby was no longer inside the mother. the uterus (fundus) had worn away or been eaten away establishing Conor's exit point, this just goes to further the point that Conot was protected. My apologies on the Anatomy and my mis-classification of the uterus and its sections, the fundus (top portion of uterus outside the pelvis) was what I was referring to and not the entire Uterine structure.


Anon


There was an incision in the top part of the uterus (the fundus) through which the baby had been removed before Laci was put into the water. Dr. Peterson said it was "frayed" but admitted that if an incision had been made, decomposition would make it appear frayed.

The length of the uterus in Laci's body was 23 cm, 10 cm less than the fundal height measurement of 33 cm on December 23. The baby was removed from her body as she was dying and the uterus had partially contracted. The uterus cannot contract once the mother is dead.

The uterus in Laci's body was at the level of the navel, significantly lower than the uterus at 33 weeks gestation. See picture.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:04 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy posted: The placenta would be well up, the uterus remains in the hip/pelvic area...

Not only do you misstate the facts of the case, you now have misrepresented the anatomy of a pregnant woman.

This is a picture of a fetus in the uterus at 33 weeks gestation. Notice the height of the uterus, several inches above the navel. Also notice that the placenta is inside the uterus.

Image


Well you tell me Jane, how the uterus could be intact and less effected than the other organs, if The baby was no longer inside the mother. the uterus (fundus) had worn away or been eaten away establishing Conor's exit point, this just goes to further the point that Conot was protected. My apologies on the Anatomy and my mis-classification of the uterus and its sections, the fundus (top portion of uterus outside the pelvis) was what I was referring to and not the entire Uterine structure.


Anon


There was an incision in the top part of the uterus (the fundus) through which the baby had been removed before Laci was put into the water. Dr. Peterson said it was "frayed" but admitted that if an incision had been made, decomposition would make it appear frayed.

The length of the uterus in Laci's body was 23 cm, 10 cm less than the fundal height measurement of 33 cm on December 23. The baby was removed from her body as she was dying and the uterus had partially contracted. The uterus cannot contract once the mother is dead.

The uterus in Laci's body was at the level of the navel, significantly lower than the uterus at 33 weeks gestation. See picture.


Since Fraying or being Cut (IF!) with decomposition would lead to the same result. There is no indication the uterus was cut.

You would expect the missing Fundal to decrease the overall length if it was worn away. I have not heard any evidence that the uterus had contracted, not sure what the effects of salt water would be on the uterus. A simple explanation would be that Braxton Hix contractions would have started by this point.

We know Laci was Alive until at least Dec 23rd, so I'm not sure what the Naval height tells us, Anatomy diagrams are usually general representations, so I don't know if the one you linked is scientific. Some women carry High, some carry low, not sure what this means from an evidence standpoint.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:46 am

Anonshy, I assume that you understand that Dr. Brian Peterson was a witness for the prosecution and was expected to support their theory of the case. The fact that he agreed that the opening near the top of the uterus may have been an incision through which the baby was removed from Laci's body is a significant admission.

He also made several other significant admissions. I prefer to quote from the transcripts for accuracy. I realize that accuracy doesn't matter to you, but it does to me. Why these admissions by Dr. Peterson were not considered reasonable doubt of Scott's guilt by the jury is proof of their extreme bias.
***
PETERSON:……. The other possibility would be that tools were, in fact, used to remove the extremities, but was simply done in a careful enough way so as not to leave tool marks.
*
GERAGOS: Okay. And we have no tissue from roughly the belly button up; is that correct?
PETERSON: Correct.
GERAGOS: And that is consistent with an injury and accelerated decomposition, is it not?
PETERSON: Consistent with is probably a good term. Again, I had no evidence of that, because soft tissue was missing.
GERAGOS: Okay. But consistent with is one distinct possibility?
PETERSON: It's a possibility.
*
PETERSON: Well, the uterus is an internal organ, and we know that Conner came out the top of the uterus.
GERAGOS: And Conner exited from somewhere on Laci's body, correct?
PETERSON: That's correct.
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.
PETERSON: Well, if we assume the incision was up high, then that would be true.
*
HARRIS: And when counsel was asking you about the possibility of Conner being in some protected environment, if we just look at individual pieces, that is possible, that he could have been protected in some other environment?
PETERSON: Correct.
*
(Prelim) HARRIS: Now, you were asked about possibility of Conner being in some kind of bag or something like that, and you were saying it would assume a number of things, but it's also possible.
PETERSON: (Affirmative nod.)
*
(Prelim)GERAGOS:..... would that have also been consistent with the baby having been placed in a bag and this tape that was around the neck having been looped around once and knotted so that once placed in the water, the baby would have been in a protected environment? Is that also consistent with the lack of decomposition that you saw of the baby?....  
PETERSON:…..But if we assume that somehow he was removed through that portion of her uterus that was damaged that I mentioned earlier and placed in some kind of protected environment, and if we further assume that he was released from that at about the same time that Laci floated up, I think that's possible.
*
(Prelim) PETERSON:… I think in terms of stage of decomposition, if, hypothetically, you had that infant sitting in ocean water but protected for a several-month period, you might see similar changes.
*
(Prelim) PETERSON:...In terms of how this baby went through rocks, other things that may have happened on its trip to the shore, I can't speak to that....
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Feb 21, 2017 4:01 pm

jane wrote:Anonshy, I assume that you understand that Dr. Brian Peterson was a witness for the prosecution and was expected to support their theory of the case. The fact that he agreed that the opening near the top of the uterus may have been an incision through which the baby was removed from Laci's body is a significant admission.

He also made several other significant admissions. I prefer to quote from the transcripts for accuracy. I realize that accuracy doesn't matter to you, but it does to me. Why these admissions by Dr. Peterson were not considered reasonable doubt of Scott's guilt by the jury is proof of their extreme bias.
***
PETERSON:……. The other possibility would be that tools were, in fact, used to remove the extremities, but was simply done in a careful enough way so as not to leave tool marks.
*
GERAGOS: Okay. And we have no tissue from roughly the belly button up; is that correct?
PETERSON: Correct.
GERAGOS: And that is consistent with an injury and accelerated decomposition, is it not?
PETERSON: Consistent with is probably a good term. Again, I had no evidence of that, because soft tissue was missing.
GERAGOS: Okay. But consistent with is one distinct possibility?
PETERSON: It's a possibility.
*
PETERSON: Well, the uterus is an internal organ, and we know that Conner came out the top of the uterus.
GERAGOS: And Conner exited from somewhere on Laci's body, correct?
PETERSON: That's correct.
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.
PETERSON: Well, if we assume the incision was up high, then that would be true.
*
HARRIS: And when counsel was asking you about the possibility of Conner being in some protected environment, if we just look at individual pieces, that is possible, that he could have been protected in some other environment?
PETERSON: Correct.
*
(Prelim) HARRIS: Now, you were asked about possibility of Conner being in some kind of bag or something like that, and you were saying it would assume a number of things, but it's also possible.
PETERSON: (Affirmative nod.)
*
(Prelim)GERAGOS:..... would that have also been consistent with the baby having been placed in a bag and this tape that was around the neck having been looped around once and knotted so that once placed in the water, the baby would have been in a protected environment? Is that also consistent with the lack of decomposition that you saw of the baby?....  
PETERSON:…..But if we assume that somehow he was removed through that portion of her uterus that was damaged that I mentioned earlier and placed in some kind of protected environment, and if we further assume that he was released from that at about the same time that Laci floated up, I think that's possible.
*
(Prelim) PETERSON:… I think in terms of stage of decomposition, if, hypothetically, you had that infant sitting in ocean water but protected for a several-month period, you might see similar changes.
*
(Prelim) PETERSON:...In terms of how this baby went through rocks, other things that may have happened on its trip to the shore, I can't speak to that....


In reviewing this testamony, and not to belittle your contentions, but I think it is very clear in a few instances, that Peterson is agreeing in principle to the hypothetical theories raised, but he is constantly expressing that he does not have the soft tissue. It the same thing if I said to you: If I asked you - If I purchased the winning MegaMillions lottery ticket, that would make me rich? The answer is always yes, and I would be foolish to say otherwise. That however does not mean I have the winning ticket, and therefore is not proof I am rich. I think you need to read this again and look at the responses (Be very careful when you hear questions with the following pre-cursors - hypothetically, if we assume, the possibility, Well, if we assume the incision was up high......

If you think this is some big revelation, you are at least consistent in your assesment of evidence.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:46 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy, I assume that you understand that Dr. Brian Peterson was a witness for the prosecution and was expected to support their theory of the case. The fact that he agreed that the opening near the top of the uterus may have been an incision through which the baby was removed from Laci's body is a significant admission.

He also made several other significant admissions. I prefer to quote from the transcripts for accuracy. I realize that accuracy doesn't matter to you, but it does to me. Why these admissions by Dr. Peterson were not considered reasonable doubt of Scott's guilt by the jury is proof of their extreme bias.
***
PETERSON:……. The other possibility would be that tools were, in fact, used to remove the extremities, but was simply done in a careful enough way so as not to leave tool marks.
*
GERAGOS: Okay. And we have no tissue from roughly the belly button up; is that correct?
PETERSON: Correct.
GERAGOS: And that is consistent with an injury and accelerated decomposition, is it not?
PETERSON: Consistent with is probably a good term. Again, I had no evidence of that, because soft tissue was missing.
GERAGOS: Okay. But consistent with is one distinct possibility?
PETERSON: It's a possibility.
*
PETERSON: Well, the uterus is an internal organ, and we know that Conner came out the top of the uterus.
GERAGOS: And Conner exited from somewhere on Laci's body, correct?
PETERSON: That's correct.
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.
PETERSON: Well, if we assume the incision was up high, then that would be true.
*
HARRIS: And when counsel was asking you about the possibility of Conner being in some protected environment, if we just look at individual pieces, that is possible, that he could have been protected in some other environment?
PETERSON: Correct.
*
(Prelim) HARRIS: Now, you were asked about possibility of Conner being in some kind of bag or something like that, and you were saying it would assume a number of things, but it's also possible.
PETERSON: (Affirmative nod.)
*
(Prelim)GERAGOS:..... would that have also been consistent with the baby having been placed in a bag and this tape that was around the neck having been looped around once and knotted so that once placed in the water, the baby would have been in a protected environment? Is that also consistent with the lack of decomposition that you saw of the baby?....  
PETERSON:…..But if we assume that somehow he was removed through that portion of her uterus that was damaged that I mentioned earlier and placed in some kind of protected environment, and if we further assume that he was released from that at about the same time that Laci floated up, I think that's possible.
*
(Prelim) PETERSON:… I think in terms of stage of decomposition, if, hypothetically, you had that infant sitting in ocean water but protected for a several-month period, you might see similar changes.
*
(Prelim) PETERSON:...In terms of how this baby went through rocks, other things that may have happened on its trip to the shore, I can't speak to that....


In reviewing this testamony, and not to belittle your contentions, but I think it is very clear in a few instances, that Peterson is agreeing in principle to the hypothetical theories raised, but he is constantly expressing that he does not have the soft tissue. It the same thing if I said to you: If I asked you - If I purchased the winning MegaMillions lottery ticket, that would make me rich? The answer is always yes, and I would be foolish to say otherwise. That however does not mean I have the winning ticket, and therefore is not proof I am rich. I think you need to read this again and look at the responses (Be very careful when you hear questions with the following pre-cursors - hypothetically, if we assume, the possibility, Well, if we assume the incision was up high......

If you think this is some big revelation, you are at least consistent in your assesment of evidence.

Anon


*Dr. Peterson did have the uterus. He removed it from the body during the autopsy and examined it.

Dr. Peterson's admissions are significant. They offer a reasonable explanation for the Inconsistent conditions of the bodies. The prosecution theory offers an unreasonable explanation for the conditions of the bodies. Peterson chooses his words very carefully so that he cannot be charged with perjury. When he gives an unreasonable explanation for the condition of the bodies in line with the prosecution theory, he says it is his "opinion." But he also must admit that there are other more reasonable explanations.

I would like to change some of the wording in my previous post. I used the word "contract" instead of the more accurate term "retract." The uterus contracts when the baby is being born to push the baby out. After the birth, the uterus retracts (goes down in size.) So here's my post again with the corrected wording:

The length of the uterus in Laci's body was 23 cm, 10 cm less than the fundal height measurement of 33 cm on December 23. The baby was removed from her body as she was dying and the uterus had partially retracted. The uterus cannot retract once the mother is dead.

The uterus in Laci's body was at the level of the navel, significantly lower than the uterus at 33 weeks gestation. See picture.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:01 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy, I assume that you understand that Dr. Brian Peterson was a witness for the prosecution and was expected to support their theory of the case. The fact that he agreed that the opening near the top of the uterus may have been an incision through which the baby was removed from Laci's body is a significant admission.

He also made several other significant admissions. I prefer to quote from the transcripts for accuracy. I realize that accuracy doesn't matter to you, but it does to me. Why these admissions by Dr. Peterson were not considered reasonable doubt of Scott's guilt by the jury is proof of their extreme bias.
***
PETERSON:……. The other possibility would be that tools were, in fact, used to remove the extremities, but was simply done in a careful enough way so as not to leave tool marks.
*
GERAGOS: Okay. And we have no tissue from roughly the belly button up; is that correct?
PETERSON: Correct.
GERAGOS: And that is consistent with an injury and accelerated decomposition, is it not?
PETERSON: Consistent with is probably a good term. Again, I had no evidence of that, because soft tissue was missing.
GERAGOS: Okay. But consistent with is one distinct possibility?
PETERSON: It's a possibility.
*
PETERSON: Well, the uterus is an internal organ, and we know that Conner came out the top of the uterus.
GERAGOS: And Conner exited from somewhere on Laci's body, correct?
PETERSON: That's correct.
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.
PETERSON: Well, if we assume the incision was up high, then that would be true.
*
HARRIS: And when counsel was asking you about the possibility of Conner being in some protected environment, if we just look at individual pieces, that is possible, that he could have been protected in some other environment?
PETERSON: Correct.
*
(Prelim) HARRIS: Now, you were asked about possibility of Conner being in some kind of bag or something like that, and you were saying it would assume a number of things, but it's also possible.
PETERSON: (Affirmative nod.)
*
(Prelim)GERAGOS:..... would that have also been consistent with the baby having been placed in a bag and this tape that was around the neck having been looped around once and knotted so that once placed in the water, the baby would have been in a protected environment? Is that also consistent with the lack of decomposition that you saw of the baby?....  
PETERSON:…..But if we assume that somehow he was removed through that portion of her uterus that was damaged that I mentioned earlier and placed in some kind of protected environment, and if we further assume that he was released from that at about the same time that Laci floated up, I think that's possible.
*
(Prelim) PETERSON:… I think in terms of stage of decomposition, if, hypothetically, you had that infant sitting in ocean water but protected for a several-month period, you might see similar changes.
*
(Prelim) PETERSON:...In terms of how this baby went through rocks, other things that may have happened on its trip to the shore, I can't speak to that....


In reviewing this testamony, and not to belittle your contentions, but I think it is very clear in a few instances, that Peterson is agreeing in principle to the hypothetical theories raised, but he is constantly expressing that he does not have the soft tissue. It the same thing if I said to you: If I asked you - If I purchased the winning MegaMillions lottery ticket, that would make me rich? The answer is always yes, and I would be foolish to say otherwise. That however does not mean I have the winning ticket, and therefore is not proof I am rich. I think you need to read this again and look at the responses (Be very careful when you hear questions with the following pre-cursors - hypothetically, if we assume, the possibility, Well, if we assume the incision was up high......

If you think this is some big revelation, you are at least consistent in your assesment of evidence.

Anon


*Dr. Peterson did have the uterus. He removed it from the body during the autopsy and examined it.

Dr. Peterson's admissions are significant. They offer a reasonable explanation for the Inconsistent conditions of the bodies. The prosecution theory offers an unreasonable explanation for the conditions of the bodies. Peterson chooses his words very carefully so that he cannot be charged with perjury. When he gives an unreasonable explanation for the condition of the bodies in line with the prosecution theory, he says it is his "opinion." But he also must admit that there are other more reasonable explanations.

I would like to change some of the wording in my previous post. I used the word "contract" instead of the more accurate term "retract." The uterus contracts when the baby is being born to push the baby out. After the birth, the uterus retracts (goes down in size.) So here's my post again with the corrected wording:

The length of the uterus in Laci's body was 23 cm, 10 cm less than the fundal height measurement of 33 cm on December 23. The baby was removed from her body as she was dying and the uterus had partially retracted. The uterus cannot retract once the mother is dead.

The uterus in Laci's body was at the level of the navel, significantly lower than the uterus at 33 weeks gestation. See picture.


Jane, read it again, it is simply admissions to hypotheticals!

Peterson did not have the top portion of the uterus, it had worn away, there was no incision

Peterson is asked if the Uterus/Fundus was cut at the "top" he stipulates to the hypothetical but states that that there was no incision!

Peterson offers very little on the difference in decomposition, other than the baby was protected in the womb for an extended period. There is a slight eloboration about the portions of Laci's body that were still covered in clothing
, beig in better condition that the parts that were exposed.

Peterson never states there are "more reasonable" explanations, your making that up!

There is no evidence from Peterson about Uteral retraction or contraction, your making that up!

PETERSON:
"So up here would actually be the top of the uterus when it's swung back in anatomic position. And that's where it was, where it had come apart. I described the edge of that as being friable, crumbly, fragile. I did not see, speaking of tool marks,I did not see evidence of tool marks on the uterus, such as cuts, for example. Simply this friable, crumbly edge."

PETERSON: Well, in terms of why it was the uterus there, perhaps, and other organs weren't, smooth muscle organs like the uterus in a woman, and the prostate gland in a man, tend to be relatively protected down in the pelvis, relatively resistant to degradation. So oftentimes there could be a lot of other parts missing, we'll still have that to help us determine the sex of the person. I guess that would be the main forensic significance. As I said, my other conclusion, based on the uterus, because it was enlarged and was thin, it had been pregnant. Now, at the point that I got this body, there was nothing left in the uterus. So there was no baby in there. There was no placenta in there. But the uterus remained enlarged from having been pregnant.

PETERSON: Well, the uterus originates in the true pelvis. That's where the attachments are down below. For the uterus to be exposed, for a pregnant uterus, as in this case, to be exposed, you have to have portions of the abdominal wall missing. Namely skin, subcutaneous tissue, fat and muscle. And once those things are all gone, and one last layer of membrane called the peritoneum, at that point you expose the inside of the abdomen, and the top of the uterus would be visible there.

HARRIS: So looking at Ms. Peterson's remains, looking at that uterus, from your expert opinion there had been a baby inside that uterus?
PETERSON: That's correct. And it never had a chance to go back down in size again.
HARRIS: Again, just from the lay person's point of view, that means that Ms. Peterson was pregnant and the baby had not been delivered and she had died while that baby was still there?
PETERSON: That is my opinion.

HARRIS: From your examination of Conner and the state that he was in, versus Laci, what did that kind of mean to you?
PETERSON:My conclusion was that Conner had been protected, certainly protected to a greater degree than Laci was.
HARRIS: And did you have an opinion of how he was protected?
PETERSON: I did. And ultimately this came by comparing the two autopsies and by comparing the condition of Laci's uterus to the rest of her body. My thinking was that Conner had likely been protected by that uterus, and ultimately, with time in the water and with tidal action, the uterus was abraded open. At that time Conner was released and ended up washing ashore very shortly thereafter.
HARRIS: In terms of Laci's body, was the inside of her uterus somewhat protected or in a different state compared to the rest of her body?
PETERSON: Well, the fact is that her uterus was there at all, which was different compared to every other organ that she had had. So I think based on its location lower in the pelvis and however she acted against things at the bottom, and so forth, it took a while to wear away that part of her abdominal wall to get to the point where the uterus was exposed. It took further time to wear away the top of the uterus, which ultimately caused Conner's release.

HARRIS: And Laci was in a fluid environment, but she wasn't protected in the same way. Can you describe the difference there?
PETERSON: Sure. We'll even use the term maceration in a hospital pathology where we're looking at a still birth and a baby that's died in the uterus and then, perhaps, is delivered a day or two or three or more later will undergo the same type changes. Not to the degree that we see in Conner, but maceration-type changes anyway. In a fresher stillborn, those will often involve skin changes, overriding of the skull plates, and, to a certain degree, liquefaction of the organs. So we'll see that in a hospital setting, too, and that's where that term maceration would be used. I think the difference is they were both in fluid, they were both in fluid environments, but Conner was much more protected than Laci. So the question is how can one reasonably explain the fact, both fluid environments, there's so much more of her missing, there's really little of him missing, how does that happen. And my conclusion was the fluid was different. He was protected in the uterus. There was amniotic fluid. She was in the ocean. Different kind of protection.

PETERSON: I did. In this case there was a portion of the colon that actually was coming out the anus. In the colon there was a material call meconium. It's a dark green, kind of thick, it's a pasty fluid. And typically when newborns have their first bowel movement, that's what you see is meconium. Sometimes when babies are in distress in the uterus they can actually dump that in the uterus, which can cause lung problems later. But in Conner's case the meconium was still where it belonged, in the colon.
HARRIS: And is there, does that indicate anything?
PETERSON: Well, the fact that was, that it was there. If it hadn't been there, then I might have thought Well, where did it go, why wasn't it where it was supposed to be. The fact that it was there was a clue to me that likely he had died before the birthing process, before he had a chance to get rid of that.

HARRIS: Now, if you factor into everything that you find with Conner and then apply that to what you find with Laci, does that give you more information to form your opinion or conclusion?
PETERSON: It did, but unfortunately not specifically towards cause of death. I left the cause of death with Conner undetermined. But, truly, I believe that whatever, for whatever reason that Laci met her demise, it was her death that caused Conner's death; that he was still in the uterus. And I base that, again, on the difference in the bodies in terms of presence and absence, feeding, no feeding, protection, no protection.

PETERSON:I would say that, based on the things we have already discussed, the relative conditions of the bodies, the changes I saw in the uterus, and so forth, my opinion is that Conner was in the uterus when Laci was placed in the water, and eventually was released fits those facts best. As you have also said there might be other scenarios that fit those facts too. Based on what I know now, I think those fit the facts best.
GERAGOS: The other possibility or the other alternatives are reasonable as well?
PETERSON: Well, I guess there is a scale there. Again, I'm happy with my opinion. I think it fits well. I suspect there are other suggestions that could fit too, though.
GERAGOS: Be just as reasonable?
PETERSON: I think, depends on who does the assessment of reasonability.
GERAGOS: Thank you. I have no further questions.

HARRIS: Doctor, in terms of going back through that, some of these other potential ideas or hypotheticals, the one that I think that we do know from the physical state of the body of Laci Peterson that you examined is, Conner was not born vaginally; is that correct?
PETERSON: That's correct.

HARRIS: Didn't come out of an incision?
PETERSON:I found no incision.
HARRIS: So the only way that the body could have come out was through that torn, frayed portion at the top of the uterus?
PETERSON:Correct.
HARRIS: So, again, by the laws of anatomy that you have described for us before, means that she has to be decomposing, or exposed to the environment at the top of the uterus for the, for Conner to come out at that particular spot?
PETERSON: That's my opinion.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:57 pm

The top of the uterus (the fundus) was not missing. There was an opening in it. Dr. Peterson is very clever with words. Peterson gives some absurd theory about the uterus rubbing back and forth on the bottom of the bay to create the opening. Just think about how ridiculous that is when every other organ in Laci's body was missing as a result of decomposition and animal feeding. A pregnant uterus would have met the exact same fate. A 33 week pregnant uterus is not low in the pelvis and would not have been protected. A uterus rubbing back and forth on the bottom of the bay would have been eaten by crabs.

The only reason the uterus was still in Laci’s body is because it was a non-pregnant uterus at the time she was placed in the bay. The baby had been removed. The uterus had retracted slightly after the fetus was removed so that it was at the level of the navel and therefore protected by the pelvic girdle and her clothing.

Don’t expect so see any confirmation of this fact from Dr. Peterson. He completely ignores the 10 centimeter difference in the length of the uterus from 33 cm on December 23 to 23 cm at the time of the autopsy in April.

You need to read the testimony of Dr. Peterson with more skepticism. You need to evaluate if what he is saying is reasonable or unreasonable.

There is no reasonable explanation for the relatively good condition of the baby compared to the almost complete devastation of Laci’s body except that the baby was not inside her body for 3 ½ months in the bay.

Are you aware of what happens to a dead fetus inside the body of a living mother? According to Dr. Peterson, a dead fetus inside the body of a dead mother for 3 ½ months is in better condition. Well preserved skin, genitals intact, only moderately decomposed with internal organs appearing normal although liquefied inside. (Some of these facts come from Dr. Galloway.)
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:49 pm

jane wrote:The top of the uterus (the fundus) was not missing. There was an opening in it. Dr. Peterson is very clever with words. Peterson gives some absurd theory about the uterus rubbing back and forth on the bottom of the bay to create the opening. Just think about how ridiculous that is when every other organ in Laci's body was missing as a result of decomposition and animal feeding. A pregnant uterus would have met the exact same fate. A 33 week pregnant uterus is not low in the pelvis and would not have been protected. A uterus rubbing back and forth on the bottom of the bay would have been eaten by crabs.

The only reason the uterus was still in Laci’s body is because it was a non-pregnant uterus at the time she was placed in the bay. The baby had been removed. The uterus had retracted slightly after the fetus was removed so that it was at the level of the navel and therefore protected by the pelvic girdle and her clothing.

Don’t expect so see any confirmation of this fact from Dr. Peterson. He completely ignores the 10 centimeter difference in the length of the uterus from 33 cm on December 23 to 23 cm at the time of the autopsy in April.

You need to read the testimony of Dr. Peterson with more skepticism. You need to evaluate if what he is saying is reasonable or unreasonable.

There is no reasonable explanation for the relatively good condition of the baby compared to the almost complete devastation of Laci’s body except that the baby was not inside her body for 3 ½ months in the bay.

Are you aware of what happens to a dead fetus inside the body of a living mother? According to Dr. Peterson, a dead fetus inside the body of a dead mother for 3 ½ months is in better condition. Well preserved skin, genitals intact, only moderately decomposed with internal organs appearing normal although liquefied inside. (Some of these facts come from Dr. Galloway.)


I posted the testimony from the expert in direct relationship to the statements you made. You have often criticized thoes who challeng you on Geanty stating that how could any lay person know more than an expert, well I challenge you in the Same manner, Peterson has performed thousands of autopsy's in his career and is an expert in his field. Your assertions that his theories are absurd is based on no foundation. No expert has testified that there was any contraction or retraction of the uterus, that is a figment of your imagination. The fundas was 2 mm thick at the top and frayed with a distinct opening, portion of it were missing and frayed due to tidal forces, so there is no way to determine what you are suggesting by sheer measurements. Please quote your evidence on retraction from the court transcripts. Retraction would also mean the consolidation of the tissue which would mean not just shorter lengths but also much thicker walls. I would suggest that each inch of retraction would have a distinct effect on the uterus wall thickness, but again, the expert stated that the wall thickness was consistent to a near or full term uterus.

The skin was remove bu there was still muscle and other structures up,to the navel. This is consistent with the abdomin wearing away and eventually the he top of the fundas wearing away, once the placenta and baby were expelled the entails and other organs would be exposed, subject to large animal feeding. The friction on the abdomin would be of the same general tidal forces that would have first removed the forearms, head left leg, once they were gone, the petrudimg belly would be the next part of the body that would rub, it took months but it did happen, it is reasonable and makes sense

Connor was very badly degraded, he was liquified (macerated). His brain and internal organs were badly degraded. There was a difference in their degradation in terms of type, but this is consistent with petersons theory and with the facts of the case. So the notion that Conor was in good shape, is factually untrue, he was more intact, but just as badly degraded. The sterility of the womb and lack of bacteria takes away the whole bacterial forms of degradation, this is corroborating evidence that he was protected by the uterus for some time and that the abdominal cavity was intact when Laci went into the water

It's funny, when I step back and actually look into the basis of your statement, at every turn it leads to speculation and assertions that are not based on facts from the case. Just as in this instance, you see the highlights above from the court transcript, it directly disputes your claims.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Wed Feb 22, 2017 5:22 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:The top of the uterus (the fundus) was not missing. There was an opening in it. Dr. Peterson is very clever with words. Peterson gives some absurd theory about the uterus rubbing back and forth on the bottom of the bay to create the opening. Just think about how ridiculous that is when every other organ in Laci's body was missing as a result of decomposition and animal feeding. A pregnant uterus would have met the exact same fate. A 33 week pregnant uterus is not low in the pelvis and would not have been protected. A uterus rubbing back and forth on the bottom of the bay would have been eaten by crabs.

The only reason the uterus was still in Laci’s body is because it was a non-pregnant uterus at the time she was placed in the bay. The baby had been removed. The uterus had retracted slightly after the fetus was removed so that it was at the level of the navel and therefore protected by the pelvic girdle and her clothing.

Don’t expect so see any confirmation of this fact from Dr. Peterson. He completely ignores the 10 centimeter difference in the length of the uterus from 33 cm on December 23 to 23 cm at the time of the autopsy in April.

You need to read the testimony of Dr. Peterson with more skepticism. You need to evaluate if what he is saying is reasonable or unreasonable.

There is no reasonable explanation for the relatively good condition of the baby compared to the almost complete devastation of Laci’s body except that the baby was not inside her body for 3 ½ months in the bay.

Are you aware of what happens to a dead fetus inside the body of a living mother? According to Dr. Peterson, a dead fetus inside the body of a dead mother for 3 ½ months is in better condition. Well preserved skin, genitals intact, only moderately decomposed with internal organs appearing normal although liquefied inside. (Some of these facts come from Dr. Galloway.)


I posted the testimony from the expert in direct relationship to the statements you made. You have often criticized thoes who challeng you on Geanty stating that how could any lay person know more than an expert, well I challenge you in the Same manner, Peterson has performed thousands of autopsy's in his career and is an expert in his field. Your assertions that his theories are absurd is based on no foundation. No expert has testified that there was any contraction or retraction of the uterus, that is a figment of your imagination. The fundas was 2 mm thick at the top and frayed with a district opening, peers of it were missing, so there is no way to determine what you are suggesting by sheer measurements. Please quote your evidence on retraction from the court transcripts.

The skin was remove bu there was still muscle and other structures up,to the navel. This is consistent with the abdomin wearing away and eventually the he top of the fundas wearing away, once the placenta and baby were expelled the entails and other organs would be exposed, subject to large animal feeding. The friction on the abdomin would be of the same general tidal forces that would have first removed the forearms, head left leg, once they were gone, the petrudimg belly would be the next part of the body that would rub, it took months but it did happen, it is reasonable and makes sense

Connor was very badly degraded, he was liquified (macerated). His brain and internal organs were badly degraded. There was a difference in their degradation in terms of type, but this is consistent with petersons theory and with the facts of the case. So the notion that Conor was in good shape, is factually untrue, he was more intact, but just as badly degraded. The sterility of the womb and lack of bacteria takes away the whole bacterial forms of degradation, this is corroborating evidence that he was protected by the uterus for some time and that the abdominal cavity was intact when Laci went into the water

It's funny, when I step back and actually look into the basis of your statement, at every turn it leads to speculation and assertions that are not based on facts from the case. Just as in this instance, you see the highlights above from the court transcript, it directly disputes your claims.

Anon


What exactly is your agenda? Have you ever lived near the shore of an ocean? I don't see how anyone who has lived in such an area could believe the nonsense coming from Dr. Peterson.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Feb 22, 2017 6:30 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:The top of the uterus (the fundus) was not missing. There was an opening in it. Dr. Peterson is very clever with words. Peterson gives some absurd theory about the uterus rubbing back and forth on the bottom of the bay to create the opening. Just think about how ridiculous that is when every other organ in Laci's body was missing as a result of decomposition and animal feeding. A pregnant uterus would have met the exact same fate. A 33 week pregnant uterus is not low in the pelvis and would not have been protected. A uterus rubbing back and forth on the bottom of the bay would have been eaten by crabs.

The only reason the uterus was still in Laci’s body is because it was a non-pregnant uterus at the time she was placed in the bay. The baby had been removed. The uterus had retracted slightly after the fetus was removed so that it was at the level of the navel and therefore protected by the pelvic girdle and her clothing.

Don’t expect so see any confirmation of this fact from Dr. Peterson. He completely ignores the 10 centimeter difference in the length of the uterus from 33 cm on December 23 to 23 cm at the time of the autopsy in April.

You need to read the testimony of Dr. Peterson with more skepticism. You need to evaluate if what he is saying is reasonable or unreasonable.

There is no reasonable explanation for the relatively good condition of the baby compared to the almost complete devastation of Laci’s body except that the baby was not inside her body for 3 ½ months in the bay.

Are you aware of what happens to a dead fetus inside the body of a living mother? According to Dr. Peterson, a dead fetus inside the body of a dead mother for 3 ½ months is in better condition. Well preserved skin, genitals intact, only moderately decomposed with internal organs appearing normal although liquefied inside. (Some of these facts come from Dr. Galloway.)


I posted the testimony from the expert in direct relationship to the statements you made. You have often criticized thoes who challeng you on Geanty stating that how could any lay person know more than an expert, well I challenge you in the Same manner, Peterson has performed thousands of autopsy's in his career and is an expert in his field. Your assertions that his theories are absurd is based on no foundation. No expert has testified that there was any contraction or retraction of the uterus, that is a figment of your imagination. The fundas was 2 mm thick at the top and frayed with a district opening, peers of it were missing, so there is no way to determine what you are suggesting by sheer measurements. Please quote your evidence on retraction from the court transcripts.

The skin was remove bu there was still muscle and other structures up,to the navel. This is consistent with the abdomin wearing away and eventually the he top of the fundas wearing away, once the placenta and baby were expelled the entails and other organs would be exposed, subject to large animal feeding. The friction on the abdomin would be of the same general tidal forces that would have first removed the forearms, head left leg, once they were gone, the petrudimg belly would be the next part of the body that would rub, it took months but it did happen, it is reasonable and makes sense

Connor was very badly degraded, he was liquified (macerated). His brain and internal organs were badly degraded. There was a difference in their degradation in terms of type, but this is consistent with petersons theory and with the facts of the case. So the notion that Conor was in good shape, is factually untrue, he was more intact, but just as badly degraded. The sterility of the womb and lack of bacteria takes away the whole bacterial forms of degradation, this is corroborating evidence that he was protected by the uterus for some time and that the abdominal cavity was intact when Laci went into the water

It's funny, when I step back and actually look into the basis of your statement, at every turn it leads to speculation and assertions that are not based on facts from the case. Just as in this instance, you see the highlights above from the court transcript, it directly disputes your claims.

Anon


What exactly is your agenda? Have you ever lived near the shore of an ocean? I don't see how anyone who has lived in such an area could believe the nonsense coming from Dr. Peterson.


What is your agenda, You don't need to live by an ocean to have common sense! Laci's condition is consistent with submersion for 4 months, Connor's condition is consistent with being in his mothers womb for 4 months, that is the simple truth, it is you that can't get your head around the facts. You keep challenging Peterson but I don't see any evidence that contradicts his findings, and other than speculation your not adding anything to counter his professional opinion

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Wed Feb 22, 2017 6:59 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:The top of the uterus (the fundus) was not missing. There was an opening in it. Dr. Peterson is very clever with words. Peterson gives some absurd theory about the uterus rubbing back and forth on the bottom of the bay to create the opening. Just think about how ridiculous that is when every other organ in Laci's body was missing as a result of decomposition and animal feeding. A pregnant uterus would have met the exact same fate. A 33 week pregnant uterus is not low in the pelvis and would not have been protected. A uterus rubbing back and forth on the bottom of the bay would have been eaten by crabs.

The only reason the uterus was still in Laci’s body is because it was a non-pregnant uterus at the time she was placed in the bay. The baby had been removed. The uterus had retracted slightly after the fetus was removed so that it was at the level of the navel and therefore protected by the pelvic girdle and her clothing.

Don’t expect so see any confirmation of this fact from Dr. Peterson. He completely ignores the 10 centimeter difference in the length of the uterus from 33 cm on December 23 to 23 cm at the time of the autopsy in April.

You need to read the testimony of Dr. Peterson with more skepticism. You need to evaluate if what he is saying is reasonable or unreasonable.

There is no reasonable explanation for the relatively good condition of the baby compared to the almost complete devastation of Laci’s body except that the baby was not inside her body for 3 ½ months in the bay.

Are you aware of what happens to a dead fetus inside the body of a living mother? According to Dr. Peterson, a dead fetus inside the body of a dead mother for 3 ½ months is in better condition. Well preserved skin, genitals intact, only moderately decomposed with internal organs appearing normal although liquefied inside. (Some of these facts come from Dr. Galloway.)


I posted the testimony from the expert in direct relationship to the statements you made. You have often criticized thoes who challeng you on Geanty stating that how could any lay person know more than an expert, well I challenge you in the Same manner, Peterson has performed thousands of autopsy's in his career and is an expert in his field. Your assertions that his theories are absurd is based on no foundation. No expert has testified that there was any contraction or retraction of the uterus, that is a figment of your imagination. The fundas was 2 mm thick at the top and frayed with a district opening, peers of it were missing, so there is no way to determine what you are suggesting by sheer measurements. Please quote your evidence on retraction from the court transcripts.

The skin was remove bu there was still muscle and other structures up,to the navel. This is consistent with the abdomin wearing away and eventually the he top of the fundas wearing away, once the placenta and baby were expelled the entails and other organs would be exposed, subject to large animal feeding. The friction on the abdomin would be of the same general tidal forces that would have first removed the forearms, head left leg, once they were gone, the petrudimg belly would be the next part of the body that would rub, it took months but it did happen, it is reasonable and makes sense

Connor was very badly degraded, he was liquified (macerated). His brain and internal organs were badly degraded. There was a difference in their degradation in terms of type, but this is consistent with petersons theory and with the facts of the case. So the notion that Conor was in good shape, is factually untrue, he was more intact, but just as badly degraded. The sterility of the womb and lack of bacteria takes away the whole bacterial forms of degradation, this is corroborating evidence that he was protected by the uterus for some time and that the abdominal cavity was intact when Laci went into the water

It's funny, when I step back and actually look into the basis of your statement, at every turn it leads to speculation and assertions that are not based on facts from the case. Just as in this instance, you see the highlights above from the court transcript, it directly disputes your claims.

Anon


What exactly is your agenda? Have you ever lived near the shore of an ocean? I don't see how anyone who has lived in such an area could believe the nonsense coming from Dr. Peterson.


What is your agenda, You don't need to live by an ocean to have common sense! Laci's condition is consistent with submersion for 4 months, Connor's condition is consistent with being in his mothers womb for 4 months, that is the simple truth, it is you that can't get your head around the facts. You keep challenging Peterson but I don't see any evidence that contradicts his findings, and other than speculation your not adding anything to counter his professional opinion

Anon


You should question Peterson's findings. Conner's condition is not consistent with being in his dead mother's womb for 3 1/2 months. His body does not fit the description of maceration which happens when there is a dead fetus inside a live mother. In that case, the skin falls off within a very short period of time (desquamation). And, obviously, the uterus of a dead mother is not a sterile environment.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Feb 22, 2017 8:48 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:The top of the uterus (the fundus) was not missing. There was an opening in it. Dr. Peterson is very clever with words. Peterson gives some absurd theory about the uterus rubbing back and forth on the bottom of the bay to create the opening. Just think about how ridiculous that is when every other organ in Laci's body was missing as a result of decomposition and animal feeding. A pregnant uterus would have met the exact same fate. A 33 week pregnant uterus is not low in the pelvis and would not have been protected. A uterus rubbing back and forth on the bottom of the bay would have been eaten by crabs.

The only reason the uterus was still in Laci’s body is because it was a non-pregnant uterus at the time she was placed in the bay. The baby had been removed. The uterus had retracted slightly after the fetus was removed so that it was at the level of the navel and therefore protected by the pelvic girdle and her clothing.

Don’t expect so see any confirmation of this fact from Dr. Peterson. He completely ignores the 10 centimeter difference in the length of the uterus from 33 cm on December 23 to 23 cm at the time of the autopsy in April.

You need to read the testimony of Dr. Peterson with more skepticism. You need to evaluate if what he is saying is reasonable or unreasonable.

There is no reasonable explanation for the relatively good condition of the baby compared to the almost complete devastation of Laci’s body except that the baby was not inside her body for 3 ½ months in the bay.

Are you aware of what happens to a dead fetus inside the body of a living mother? According to Dr. Peterson, a dead fetus inside the body of a dead mother for 3 ½ months is in better condition. Well preserved skin, genitals intact, only moderately decomposed with internal organs appearing normal although liquefied inside. (Some of these facts come from Dr. Galloway.)


I posted the testimony from the expert in direct relationship to the statements you made. You have often criticized thoes who challeng you on Geanty stating that how could any lay person know more than an expert, well I challenge you in the Same manner, Peterson has performed thousands of autopsy's in his career and is an expert in his field. Your assertions that his theories are absurd is based on no foundation. No expert has testified that there was any contraction or retraction of the uterus, that is a figment of your imagination. The fundas was 2 mm thick at the top and frayed with a district opening, peers of it were missing, so there is no way to determine what you are suggesting by sheer measurements. Please quote your evidence on retraction from the court transcripts.

The skin was remove bu there was still muscle and other structures up,to the navel. This is consistent with the abdomin wearing away and eventually the he top of the fundas wearing away, once the placenta and baby were expelled the entails and other organs would be exposed, subject to large animal feeding. The friction on the abdomin would be of the same general tidal forces that would have first removed the forearms, head left leg, once they were gone, the petrudimg belly would be the next part of the body that would rub, it took months but it did happen, it is reasonable and makes sense

Connor was very badly degraded, he was liquified (macerated). His brain and internal organs were badly degraded. There was a difference in their degradation in terms of type, but this is consistent with petersons theory and with the facts of the case. So the notion that Conor was in good shape, is factually untrue, he was more intact, but just as badly degraded. The sterility of the womb and lack of bacteria takes away the whole bacterial forms of degradation, this is corroborating evidence that he was protected by the uterus for some time and that the abdominal cavity was intact when Laci went into the water

It's funny, when I step back and actually look into the basis of your statement, at every turn it leads to speculation and assertions that are not based on facts from the case. Just as in this instance, you see the highlights above from the court transcript, it directly disputes your claims.

Anon


What exactly is your agenda? Have you ever lived near the shore of an ocean? I don't see how anyone who has lived in such an area could believe the nonsense coming from Dr. Peterson.


What is your agenda, You don't need to live by an ocean to have common sense! Laci's condition is consistent with submersion for 4 months, Connor's condition is consistent with being in his mothers womb for 4 months, that is the simple truth, it is you that can't get your head around the facts. You keep challenging Peterson but I don't see any evidence that contradicts his findings, and other than speculation your not adding anything to counter his professional opinion

Anon


You should question Peterson's findings. Conner's condition is not consistent with being in his dead mother's womb for 3 1/2 months. His body does not fit the description of maceration which happens when there is a dead fetus inside a live mother. In that case, the skin falls off within a very short period of time (desquamation). And, obviously, the uterus of a dead mother is not a sterile environment.


Jane your wrong nothing you just said has any factual basis, there is a portion of the testimony that deals with the absence of bacteria in the womb and how it effects decomposition, sorry your not making any headway, disagreeing with an expert because you don't like his findings is fine, but at least give the facts for your opinion. With the gestational age you have a counter opinion in Geanty, where is your pathologist that supports your opinion?

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Feb 23, 2017 7:33 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:You should question Peterson's findings. Conner's condition is not consistent with being in his dead mother's womb for 3 1/2 months. His body does not fit the description of maceration which happens when there is a dead fetus inside a live mother. In that case, the skin falls off within a very short period of time (desquamation). And, obviously, the uterus of a dead mother is not a sterile environment.


Jane your wrong nothing you just said has any factual basis, there is a portion of the testimony that deals with the absence of bacteria in the womb and how it effects decomposition, sorry your not making any headway, disagreeing with an expert because you don't like his findings is fine, but at least give the facts for your opinion. With the gestational age you have a counter opinion in Geanty, where is your pathologist that supports your opinion?

Anon


Sometimes, Anonshy, it is necessary to do some reading and thinking on your own to check out the claims made by Peterson. Maceration describes what happens to a dead fetus inside a live mother. It is not an accurate description of Conner's condition. Peterson's testimony regarding this is false.

Process of maceration
Skin  —  the earliest sign of macerations are seen in the skin 4 – 6 hours after intrauterine death. The epidermis separates from the dermis on applying a pressure (skin slipping). Bullae appear with collection of fluid beneath the epidermis. The desquamation regularly progresses in time to extensive skin separation on the face, neck, abdomen, limbs and external genitals. (Desquamation means the skin falls off.)

https://atlases.muni.cz/atlases/stary-n ... tmort.html

Dr. Peterson says this:

We talk about changes in the early postmortem period, such as cooling of the body, stiffening of the muscles. That's rigormortis. Settling of the blood. That's livormortis. Once you get past that, there are other changes that take place, processes such as decomposition, where the body is acted on by bacteria, by microorganisms. There can be feeding on the body by larger organisms. For a body deposited in the water, that could involve large animals like sharks all way down to  bottomfeeders like crustaceans: Lobsters, crabs, what have you.
***
It should be obvious to any rational person that there is nothing that would protect the fetus from these processes once the mother is dead. The uterus is not sterile in a dead mother.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:13 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:You should question Peterson's findings. Conner's condition is not consistent with being in his dead mother's womb for 3 1/2 months. His body does not fit the description of maceration which happens when there is a dead fetus inside a live mother. In that case, the skin falls off within a very short period of time (desquamation). And, obviously, the uterus of a dead mother is not a sterile environment.


Jane your wrong nothing you just said has any factual basis, there is a portion of the testimony that deals with the absence of bacteria in the womb and how it effects decomposition, sorry your not making any headway, disagreeing with an expert because you don't like his findings is fine, but at least give the facts for your opinion. With the gestational age you have a counter opinion in Geanty, where is your pathologist that supports your opinion?

Anon


Sometimes, Anonshy, it is necessary to do some reading and thinking on your own to check out the claims made by Peterson. Maceration describes what happens to a dead fetus inside a live mother. It is not an accurate description of Conner's condition. Peterson's testimony regarding this is false.

Process of maceration
Skin  —  the earliest sign of macerations are seen in the skin 4 – 6 hours after intrauterine death. The epidermis separates from the dermis on applying a pressure (skin slipping). Bullae appear with collection of fluid beneath the epidermis. The desquamation regularly progresses in time to extensive skin separation on the face, neck, abdomen, limbs and external genitals. (Desquamation means the skin falls off.)

https://atlases.muni.cz/atlases/stary-n ... tmort.html

Dr. Peterson says this:

We talk about changes in the early postmortem period, such as cooling of the body, stiffening of the muscles. That's rigormortis. Settling of the blood. That's livormortis. Once you get past that, there are other changes that take place, processes such as decomposition, where the body is acted on by bacteria, by microorganisms. There can be feeding on the body by larger organisms. For a body deposited in the water, that could involve large animals like sharks all way down to  bottomfeeders like crustaceans: Lobsters, crabs, what have you.
***
It should be obvious to any rational person that there is nothing that would protect the fetus from these processes once the mother is dead. The uterus is not sterile in a dead mother.


The uterus is not sterile in terms of all types of bacteria, for example the type of bacteria that is active in the digestive tract of an adult, is not found in that of a fetus, there are also a host of other bacteria that we come into contact with once we are out of the womb, these bacteria are far more potent in the the decomposition of human bodies than anything found in the womb. Merconum is the build-up of all processed waste the fetus creates during gestation, and we know that it lacks bacteria, aside from being green and tar-like, it has no odor and is biologically stable. The notion that a fetus, inside the womb, inside a mothers abdomin, protected by many layers of tissue is not in any way more protected than the mother is just fantasy. Peterson also notes that in the locations on Laci's body that were covered by clothing, there was less degradation than the other exposed areas, he also notes that the structure of the abdomin (absent of skin) was still intact up to the navel, so there was considerable protection of the lower part of the uterus and pelvic region. Peterson stated that Connor's skin had become very soft, he eludes to this fact when he mentions the ease of which the postmortem tearing of Connor's skin. The liquidification of Connor's internal organs was advanced, consistent with 3 1/2 months of degradation inside a protected uterus. The alternative to Connor being insde his mother womb for 3 1/2 months is WHAT? Please tell me how Connor would be intact to the level he was under any other scenario? I have listened to what you think, I would really like to know what you can prove!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:16 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:You should question Peterson's findings. Conner's condition is not consistent with being in his dead mother's womb for 3 1/2 months. His body does not fit the description of maceration which happens when there is a dead fetus inside a live mother. In that case, the skin falls off within a very short period of time (desquamation). And, obviously, the uterus of a dead mother is not a sterile environment.


Jane your wrong nothing you just said has any factual basis, there is a portion of the testimony that deals with the absence of bacteria in the womb and how it effects decomposition, sorry your not making any headway, disagreeing with an expert because you don't like his findings is fine, but at least give the facts for your opinion. With the gestational age you have a counter opinion in Geanty, where is your pathologist that supports your opinion?

Anon


Sometimes, Anonshy, it is necessary to do some reading and thinking on your own to check out the claims made by Peterson. Maceration describes what happens to a dead fetus inside a live mother. It is not an accurate description of Conner's condition. Peterson's testimony regarding this is false.

Process of maceration
Skin  —  the earliest sign of macerations are seen in the skin 4 – 6 hours after intrauterine death. The epidermis separates from the dermis on applying a pressure (skin slipping). Bullae appear with collection of fluid beneath the epidermis. The desquamation regularly progresses in time to extensive skin separation on the face, neck, abdomen, limbs and external genitals. (Desquamation means the skin falls off.)

https://atlases.muni.cz/atlases/stary-n ... tmort.html

Dr. Peterson says this:

We talk about changes in the early postmortem period, such as cooling of the body, stiffening of the muscles. That's rigormortis. Settling of the blood. That's livormortis. Once you get past that, there are other changes that take place, processes such as decomposition, where the body is acted on by bacteria, by microorganisms. There can be feeding on the body by larger organisms. For a body deposited in the water, that could involve large animals like sharks all way down to  bottomfeeders like crustaceans: Lobsters, crabs, what have you.
***
It should be obvious to any rational person that there is nothing that would protect the fetus from these processes once the mother is dead. The uterus is not sterile in a dead mother.


The uterus is not sterile in terms of all types of bacteria, for example the type of bacteria that is active in the digestive tract of an adult, is not found in that of a fetus, there are also a host of other bacteria that we come into contact with once we are out of the womb, these bacteria are far more potent in the the decomposition of human bodies than anything found in the womb. Merconum is the build-up of all processed waste the fetus creates during gestation, and we know that it lacks bacteria, aside from being green and tar-like, it has no odor and is biologically stable. The notion that a fetus, inside the womb, inside a mothers abdomin, protected by many layers of tissue is not in any way more protected than the mother is just fantasy. Peterson also notes that in the locations on Laci's body that were covered by clothing, there was less degradation than the other exposed areas, he also notes that the structure of the abdomin (absent of skin) was still intact up to the navel, so there was considerable protection of the lower part of the uterus and pelvic region. Peterson stated that Connor's skin had become very soft, he eludes to this fact when he mentions the ease of which the postmortem tearing of Connor's skin. The liquidification of Connor's internal organs was advanced, consistent with 3 1/2 months of degradation inside a protected uterus. The alternative to Connor being insde his mother womb for 3 1/2 months is WHAT? Please tell me how Connor would be intact to the level he was under any other scenario? I have listened to what you think, I would really like to know what you can prove!

Anon


In other words, you would like to have an expert opinion. Dr. Peterson has offered an explanation:

Prelim) HARRIS: Now, you were asked about possibility of Conner being in some kind of bag or something like that, and you were saying it would assume a number of things, but it's also possible.
PETERSON: (Affirmative nod.)
*
(Prelim)GERAGOS:..... would that have also been consistent with the baby having been placed in a bag and this tape that was around the neck having been looped around once and knotted so that once placed in the water, the baby would have been in a protected environment? Is that also consistent with the lack of decomposition that you saw of the baby?....  

PETERSON:…..But if we assume that somehow he was removed through that portion of her uterus that was damaged that I mentioned earlier and placed in some kind of protected environment, and if we further assume that he was released from that at about the same time that Laci floated up, I think that's possible.
*
(Prelim) PETERSON:… I think in terms of stage of decomposition, if, hypothetically, you had that infant sitting in ocean water but protected for a several-month period, you might see similar changes.

****
From another source:

The pregnant or recently pregnant uterus decomposes more rapidly than most other organs because of its increased blood supply and decreased thickness and occasionally due to direct infection. The opposite is true for the dense, tough non-pregnant uterus, which may be found almost unchanged and intact after all the soft tissues have disappeared.

https://quizlet.com/122507193/mors-111- ... ash-cards/
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:42 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:You should question Peterson's findings. Conner's condition is not consistent with being in his dead mother's womb for 3 1/2 months. His body does not fit the description of maceration which happens when there is a dead fetus inside a live mother. In that case, the skin falls off within a very short period of time (desquamation). And, obviously, the uterus of a dead mother is not a sterile environment.


Jane your wrong nothing you just said has any factual basis, there is a portion of the testimony that deals with the absence of bacteria in the womb and how it effects decomposition, sorry your not making any headway, disagreeing with an expert because you don't like his findings is fine, but at least give the facts for your opinion. With the gestational age you have a counter opinion in Geanty, where is your pathologist that supports your opinion?

Anon


Sometimes, Anonshy, it is necessary to do some reading and thinking on your own to check out the claims made by Peterson. Maceration describes what happens to a dead fetus inside a live mother. It is not an accurate description of Conner's condition. Peterson's testimony regarding this is false.

Process of maceration
Skin  —  the earliest sign of macerations are seen in the skin 4 – 6 hours after intrauterine death. The epidermis separates from the dermis on applying a pressure (skin slipping). Bullae appear with collection of fluid beneath the epidermis. The desquamation regularly progresses in time to extensive skin separation on the face, neck, abdomen, limbs and external genitals. (Desquamation means the skin falls off.)

https://atlases.muni.cz/atlases/stary-n ... tmort.html

Dr. Peterson says this:

We talk about changes in the early postmortem period, such as cooling of the body, stiffening of the muscles. That's rigormortis. Settling of the blood. That's livormortis. Once you get past that, there are other changes that take place, processes such as decomposition, where the body is acted on by bacteria, by microorganisms. There can be feeding on the body by larger organisms. For a body deposited in the water, that could involve large animals like sharks all way down to  bottomfeeders like crustaceans: Lobsters, crabs, what have you.
***
It should be obvious to any rational person that there is nothing that would protect the fetus from these processes once the mother is dead. The uterus is not sterile in a dead mother.


The uterus is not sterile in terms of all types of bacteria, for example the type of bacteria that is active in the digestive tract of an adult, is not found in that of a fetus, there are also a host of other bacteria that we come into contact with once we are out of the womb, these bacteria are far more potent in the the decomposition of human bodies than anything found in the womb. Merconum is the build-up of all processed waste the fetus creates during gestation, and we know that it lacks bacteria, aside from being green and tar-like, it has no odor and is biologically stable. The notion that a fetus, inside the womb, inside a mothers abdomin, protected by many layers of tissue is not in any way more protected than the mother is just fantasy. Peterson also notes that in the locations on Laci's body that were covered by clothing, there was less degradation than the other exposed areas, he also notes that the structure of the abdomin (absent of skin) was still intact up to the navel, so there was considerable protection of the lower part of the uterus and pelvic region. Peterson stated that Connor's skin had become very soft, he eludes to this fact when he mentions the ease of which the postmortem tearing of Connor's skin. The liquidification of Connor's internal organs was advanced, consistent with 3 1/2 months of degradation inside a protected uterus. The alternative to Connor being insde his mother womb for 3 1/2 months is WHAT? Please tell me how Connor would be intact to the level he was under any other scenario? I have listened to what you think, I would really like to know what you can prove!

Anon


In other words, you would like to have an expert opinion. Dr. Peterson has offered an explanation:

Prelim) HARRIS: Now, you were asked about possibility of Conner being in some kind of bag or something like that, and you were saying it would assume a number of things, but it's also possible.
PETERSON: (Affirmative nod.)
*
(Prelim)GERAGOS:..... would that have also been consistent with the baby having been placed in a bag and this tape that was around the neck having been looped around once and knotted so that once placed in the water, the baby would have been in a protected environment? Is that also consistent with the lack of decomposition that you saw of the baby?....  

PETERSON:…..But if we assume that somehow he was removed through that portion of her uterus that was damaged that I mentioned earlier and placed in some kind of protected environment, andif we further assume that he was released from that at about the same time that Laci floated up, I think that's possible.
*
(Prelim) PETERSON:… I think in terms of stage of decomposition, if, hypothetically, you had that infant sitting in ocean water but protected for a several-month period, you might see similar changes.


See Highlights above.

Peterson is clear in what he states is his expert opinion, you can read that in my previous posts. These other hypothetical are just that, possible but not the opinion of the expert. As I said previously, please quote another pathologist who disagrees with Peterson, otherwise, there is no conflicting expert opinion and your points are moot. Its an interesting tactic, taking on an expert, trying to poke holes without having a theory of your own. It is easy to see where you are going with this, but I'm confused, From your previous posts, was Connor frozen?, Born Alive?, Killed Seperately form his mother?, Taken out of his mother after death?, Coffin Born?, What extreme steps did these Drug Dealers go to conceal their crime. It all fine to attack the expert, that's fair game, but his hypotheticals don't seem to match any of the veiled theories supporting your Burglar-Abducto-Murder-Frame.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:20 am

I added this to my previous post:

From another source:

The pregnant or recently pregnant uterus decomposes more rapidly than most other organs because of its increased blood supply and decreased thickness and occasionally due to direct infection. The opposite is true for the dense, tough non-pregnant uterus, which may be found almost unchanged and intact after all the soft tissues have disappeared.

https://quizlet.com/122507193/mors-111- ... ash-cards/

I can provide several other sources that say the same thing.

Of course, if the uterus decomposed rapidly, so would the baby inside it.

The only conclusion we can draw is that the baby was not in the uterus when Laci was put in the bay.

Do you need an expert to confirm this for you, or can you think for yourself?

Given these facts, it should be obvious that Dr. Peterson's "possibilities" are probabilities.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:28 am

jane wrote:I added this to my previous post:

From another source:

The pregnant or recently pregnant uterus decomposes more rapidly than most other organs because of its increased blood supply and decreased thickness and occasionally due to direct infection. The opposite is true for the dense, tough non-pregnant uterus, which may be found almost unchanged and intact after all the soft tissues have disappeared.

https://quizlet.com/122507193/mors-111- ... ash-cards/

I can provide several other sources that say the same thing.

Of course, if the uterus decomposed rapidly, so would the baby inside it.

The only conclusion we can draw is that the baby was not in the uterus when Laci was put in the bay.

Do you need an expert to confirm this for you, or can you think for yourself?

Given these facts, it should be obvious that Dr. Peterson's "possibilities" are probabilities.


Your logic is flawed, We know the condition of the Uterus, and we know the condition of Connor, I'm not even sure what you are saying, We dont have the other organs to compare the level of decomposition, Is it possible that the other organs, if still present, would have been less degraded that the uterus, Well....I guess that is possible, but guess what! there is nothing to compare against!

Peterson's possibilities remain possibilities, there is never a jump to probable, that is your flawed injection.

"Of course, if the uterus decomposed rapidly, so would the baby inside it."
False, there is a direct correlation between the condition of the Uterus and the condition of the fetus. The "Of Coarse" is a flawed insight based on no facts or reference.

"The only conclusion we can draw is that the baby was not in the uterus when Laci was put in the bay."
False, this is not the "Only", nor most viable conclusion. This is also not the opinion of the Expert Pathologist. All indications are that Laci went into the water and was there for months, all indications are that Connor was in the uterus decomposing in a different but equal manner as the mother for the same duration. So what is your opinion? Why would Todd or anyone else take the Baby out of the Mother buy brute force, how does that fit into any other scenario? We know there was no vaginal Birth, we know that Connor still had marconum in his bowels, we know that he was in submerged in liquid, long enough to produce extremely degraded skin, but show no signs of Animal feeding. Is it not your contention that Meth-Head Burglars killed them?

Scenerio 1:
Laci is deposited in the Bay along with her fetus
Tidal forces and animal feeding break down Laci's body over a 4 month period
At some point tidal forces open up the abdomin and eventually the Uterus, leaving it frayed and opening up the exit point for connor.
the bodies seperate due to hightened tidal activity and bot are deposited in the same general region on shore lines

Scenerio 2:
Laci confronts burglars in front of her house
Undetected they are able to subdue her and put her in their van
The keep her alive for an undisclosed period of time at an undisclosed location
At some point they kill Laci
At some point they forcefully remove connor from his mother through the Abdomin and the top of Fundas
They Wrap Connor up in a completely air tight wrapping and fill the cavity of that packaging with water
Laci is dropped in the ocean, and in some way tethered, keeping her in the ocean for some months
Connor is removed from his container months later and placed above the high tide mark within, coincidentially the same time period his mothers body breaks free and is found.

I think you need to look at what Possible and Probable mean.

If your theory differs from #2, please enlighten me, Im going off of your post excluding your Freezer ideas as even you seem to have backed of of that notion.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:06 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:I added this to my previous post:

From another source:

The pregnant or recently pregnant uterus decomposes more rapidly than most other organs because of its increased blood supply and decreased thickness and occasionally due to direct infection. The opposite is true for the dense, tough non-pregnant uterus, which may be found almost unchanged and intact after all the soft tissues have disappeared.

https://quizlet.com/122507193/mors-111- ... ash-cards/

I can provide several other sources that say the same thing.

Of course, if the uterus decomposed rapidly, so would the baby inside it.

The only conclusion we can draw is that the baby was not in the uterus when Laci was put in the bay.

Do you need an expert to confirm this for you, or can you think for yourself?

Given these facts, it should be obvious that Dr. Peterson's "possibilities" are probabilities.


Your logic is flawed, We know the condition of the Uterus, and we know the condition of Connor, I'm not even sure what you are saying, We dont have the other organs to compare the level of decomposition, Is it possible that the other organs, if still present, would have been less degraded that the uterus, Well....I guess that is possible, but guess what! there is nothing to compare against!

According to Dr. Peterson all of the remaining organs are missing as a result of decomposition and animal feeding.

Peterson's possibilities remain possibilities, there is never a jump to probable, that is your flawed injection.


"Of course, if the uterus decomposed rapidly, so would the baby inside it."
False, there is a direct correlation between the condition of the Uterus and the condition of the fetus. The "Of Coarse" is a flawed insight based on no facts or reference.

The last organ to decompose is the dense, tough non-pregnant uterus, which may be found almost unchanged and intact after all the soft tissues have disappeared. The fact that the uterus was still in the body and lower in the pelvis than a 33 week pregnant uterus indicates that it was a non-pregnant uterus at the time it went into the bay.

"The only conclusion we can draw is that the baby was not in the uterus when Laci was put in the bay."
False, this is not the "Only", nor most viable conclusion. This is also not the opinion of the Expert Pathologist.

Dr. Peterson gave false testimony. By using the word "opinion" and by giving other possibilities, he saves himself from a perjury charge.
All indications are that Laci went into the water and was there for months, Yes all indications are that Connor was in the uterus decomposing in a different but equal manner as the mother for the same duration.Baloney
>>>>>>>>> (Snipped)
Scenerio 2:
Laci confronts burglars in front of her house . Laci walks up at Steve Todd and others were burglarizing the Medina's house directly across the street.
Undetected they are able to subdue her and put her in their van. Yes
The keep her alive for an undisclosed period of time at an undisclosed location. Someone associated with the burglary keeps her alive for approximately 12 days in an undisclosed location.
At some point they kill Laci
At some point they forcefully remove connor from his mother through the Abdomin and the top of Fundas. The baby is removed from Laci's body through an incision in the fundus as she is dying, probably from a gun shot to the head.
They Wrap Connor up in a completely air tight wrapping and fill the cavity of that packaging with water. No, there would be no water inside the package. The package would have been wrapped and tied and placed in cold water, possibly the bay.(according to Dr. Peterson)
Laci is dropped in the ocean, and in some way tethered, keeping her in the ocean for some months. She is placed in an intertidal area of the bay where there is some kind of natural barrier that prevents the body from being found.
Connor is removed from his container months later and placed above the high tide mark within, coincidentially the same time period his mothers body breaks free and is found. The fact that both bodies were found within the same 24 hour period suggests some human intervention, although it is possible that both were kept in the same area and just happened to be washed out into the bay at the same time.
I think you need to look at what Possible and Probable mean. So do you.

If your theory differs from #2, please enlighten me, Im going off of your post excluding your Freezer ideas as even you seem to have backed of of that notion. I'm not sure what the condition of the body would be after being in a freezer for approx. 3 months. So being wrapped and placed in the cold water of the bay (approx. 50 degrees) may be a better option.

Anon
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:29 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:I added this to my previous post:

From another source:

The pregnant or recently pregnant uterus decomposes more rapidly than most other organs because of its increased blood supply and decreased thickness and occasionally due to direct infection. The opposite is true for the dense, tough non-pregnant uterus, which may be found almost unchanged and intact after all the soft tissues have disappeared.

https://quizlet.com/122507193/mors-111- ... ash-cards/

I can provide several other sources that say the same thing.

Of course, if the uterus decomposed rapidly, so would the baby inside it.

The only conclusion we can draw is that the baby was not in the uterus when Laci was put in the bay.

Do you need an expert to confirm this for you, or can you think for yourself?

Given these facts, it should be obvious that Dr. Peterson's "possibilities" are probabilities.


Your logic is flawed, We know the condition of the Uterus, and we know the condition of Connor, I'm not even sure what you are saying, We dont have the other organs to compare the level of decomposition, Is it possible that the other organs, if still present, would have been less degraded that the uterus, Well....I guess that is possible, but guess what! there is nothing to compare against!

According to Dr. Peterson all of the remaining organs are missing as a result of decomposition and animal feeding.

Peterson's possibilities remain possibilities, there is never a jump to probable, that is your flawed injection.


"Of course, if the uterus decomposed rapidly, so would the baby inside it."
False, there is a direct correlation between the condition of the Uterus and the condition of the fetus. The "Of Coarse" is a flawed insight based on no facts or reference.

The last organ to decompose is the dense, tough non-pregnant uterus, which may be found almost unchanged and intact after all the soft tissues have disappeared. The fact that the uterus was still in the body and lower in the pelvis than a 33 week pregnant uterus indicates that it was a non-pregnant uterus at the time it went into the bay.

"The only conclusion we can draw is that the baby was not in the uterus when Laci was put in the bay."
False, this is not the "Only", nor most viable conclusion. This is also not the opinion of the Expert Pathologist.

Dr. Peterson gave false testimony. By using the word "opinion" and by giving other possibilities, he saves himself from a perjury charge.
All indications are that Laci went into the water and was there for months, Yes all indications are that Connor was in the uterus decomposing in a different but equal manner as the mother for the same duration.Baloney
>>>>>>>>> (Snipped)
Scenerio 2:
Laci confronts burglars in front of her house . Laci walks up at Steve Todd and others were burglarizing the Medina's house directly across the street.
Undetected they are able to subdue her and put her in their van. Yes
The keep her alive for an undisclosed period of time at an undisclosed location. Someone associated with the burglary keeps her alive for approximately 12 days in an undisclosed location.
At some point they kill Laci
At some point they forcefully remove connor from his mother through the Abdomin and the top of Fundas. The baby is removed from Laci's body through an incision in the fundus as she is dying, probably from a gun shot to the head.
They Wrap Connor up in a completely air tight wrapping and fill the cavity of that packaging with water. No, there would be no water inside the package. The package would have been wrapped and tied and placed in cold water, possibly the bay.(according to Dr. Peterson)
Laci is dropped in the ocean, and in some way tethered, keeping her in the ocean for some months. She is placed in an intertidal area of the bay where there is some kind of natural barrier that prevents the body from being found.
Connor is removed from his container months later and placed above the high tide mark within, coincidentially the same time period his mothers body breaks free and is found. The fact that both bodies were found within the same 24 hour period suggests some human intervention, although it is possible that both were kept in the same area and just happened to be washed out into the bay at the same time.
I think you need to look at what Possible and Probable mean. So do you.

If your theory differs from #2, please enlighten me, Im going off of your post excluding your Freezer ideas as even you seem to have backed of of that notion. I'm not sure what the condition of the body would be after being in a freezer for approx. 3 months. So being wrapped and placed in the cold water of the bay (approx. 50 degrees) may be a better option.

Anon



Your completely living in fantasy land:

Why on earth would they remove the baby? for what purpose?

Why would the keep Laci alive for 12 days,for what purpose?

Laci Would have bled out in minutes after her Meth-Head C-Section, not nearly enough time for involution to recess as far as your claiming?
A Gunshot to the head would kill instantly and no involution would take place.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:34 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:I added this to my previous post:

From another source:

The pregnant or recently pregnant uterus decomposes more rapidly than most other organs because of its increased blood supply and decreased thickness and occasionally due to direct infection. The opposite is true for the dense, tough non-pregnant uterus, which may be found almost unchanged and intact after all the soft tissues have disappeared.

https://quizlet.com/122507193/mors-111- ... ash-cards/

I can provide several other sources that say the same thing.

Of course, if the uterus decomposed rapidly, so would the baby inside it.

The only conclusion we can draw is that the baby was not in the uterus when Laci was put in the bay.

Do you need an expert to confirm this for you, or can you think for yourself?

Given these facts, it should be obvious that Dr. Peterson's "possibilities" are probabilities.


Your logic is flawed, We know the condition of the Uterus, and we know the condition of Connor, I'm not even sure what you are saying, We dont have the other organs to compare the level of decomposition, Is it possible that the other organs, if still present, would have been less degraded that the uterus, Well....I guess that is possible, but guess what! there is nothing to compare against!

According to Dr. Peterson all of the remaining organs are missing as a result of decomposition and animal feeding.

Peterson's possibilities remain possibilities, there is never a jump to probable, that is your flawed injection.


"Of course, if the uterus decomposed rapidly, so would the baby inside it."
False, there is a direct correlation between the condition of the Uterus and the condition of the fetus. The "Of Coarse" is a flawed insight based on no facts or reference.

The last organ to decompose is the dense, tough non-pregnant uterus, which may be found almost unchanged and intact after all the soft tissues have disappeared. The fact that the uterus was still in the body and lower in the pelvis than a 33 week pregnant uterus indicates that it was a non-pregnant uterus at the time it went into the bay.

"The only conclusion we can draw is that the baby was not in the uterus when Laci was put in the bay."
False, this is not the "Only", nor most viable conclusion. This is also not the opinion of the Expert Pathologist.

Dr. Peterson gave false testimony. By using the word "opinion" and by giving other possibilities, he saves himself from a perjury charge.
All indications are that Laci went into the water and was there for months, Yes all indications are that Connor was in the uterus decomposing in a different but equal manner as the mother for the same duration.Baloney
>>>>>>>>> (Snipped)
Scenerio 2:
Laci confronts burglars in front of her house . Laci walks up at Steve Todd and others were burglarizing the Medina's house directly across the street.
Undetected they are able to subdue her and put her in their van. Yes
The keep her alive for an undisclosed period of time at an undisclosed location. Someone associated with the burglary keeps her alive for approximately 12 days in an undisclosed location.
At some point they kill Laci
At some point they forcefully remove connor from his mother through the Abdomin and the top of Fundas. The baby is removed from Laci's body through an incision in the fundus as she is dying, probably from a gun shot to the head.
They Wrap Connor up in a completely air tight wrapping and fill the cavity of that packaging with water. No, there would be no water inside the package. The package would have been wrapped and tied and placed in cold water, possibly the bay.(according to Dr. Peterson)
Laci is dropped in the ocean, and in some way tethered, keeping her in the ocean for some months. She is placed in an intertidal area of the bay where there is some kind of natural barrier that prevents the body from being found.
Connor is removed from his container months later and placed above the high tide mark within, coincidentially the same time period his mothers body breaks free and is found. The fact that both bodies were found within the same 24 hour period suggests some human intervention, although it is possible that both were kept in the same area and just happened to be washed out into the bay at the same time.
I think you need to look at what Possible and Probable mean. So do you.

If your theory differs from #2, please enlighten me, Im going off of your post excluding your Freezer ideas as even you seem to have backed of of that notion. I'm not sure what the condition of the body would be after being in a freezer for approx. 3 months. So being wrapped and placed in the cold water of the bay (approx. 50 degrees) may be a better option.

Anon



Your completely living in fantasy land:

Why on earth would they remove the baby? for what purpose?

Why would the keep Laci alive for 12 days,for what purpose?

Anon


You aren't dealing with the realities of the evidence.

Someone wanted the baby to keep or more likely to sell. At some point it became too dangerous to keep Laci alive anymore.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:19 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:I added this to my previous post:

From another source:

The pregnant or recently pregnant uterus decomposes more rapidly than most other organs because of its increased blood supply and decreased thickness and occasionally due to direct infection. The opposite is true for the dense, tough non-pregnant uterus, which may be found almost unchanged and intact after all the soft tissues have disappeared.

https://quizlet.com/122507193/mors-111- ... ash-cards/

I can provide several other sources that say the same thing.

Of course, if the uterus decomposed rapidly, so would the baby inside it.

The only conclusion we can draw is that the baby was not in the uterus when Laci was put in the bay.

Do you need an expert to confirm this for you, or can you think for yourself?

Given these facts, it should be obvious that Dr. Peterson's "possibilities" are probabilities.


Your logic is flawed, We know the condition of the Uterus, and we know the condition of Connor, I'm not even sure what you are saying, We dont have the other organs to compare the level of decomposition, Is it possible that the other organs, if still present, would have been less degraded that the uterus, Well....I guess that is possible, but guess what! there is nothing to compare against!

According to Dr. Peterson all of the remaining organs are missing as a result of decomposition and animal feeding.

Peterson's possibilities remain possibilities, there is never a jump to probable, that is your flawed injection.


"Of course, if the uterus decomposed rapidly, so would the baby inside it."
False, there is a direct correlation between the condition of the Uterus and the condition of the fetus. The "Of Coarse" is a flawed insight based on no facts or reference.

The last organ to decompose is the dense, tough non-pregnant uterus, which may be found almost unchanged and intact after all the soft tissues have disappeared. The fact that the uterus was still in the body and lower in the pelvis than a 33 week pregnant uterus indicates that it was a non-pregnant uterus at the time it went into the bay.

"The only conclusion we can draw is that the baby was not in the uterus when Laci was put in the bay."
False, this is not the "Only", nor most viable conclusion. This is also not the opinion of the Expert Pathologist.

Dr. Peterson gave false testimony. By using the word "opinion" and by giving other possibilities, he saves himself from a perjury charge.
All indications are that Laci went into the water and was there for months, Yes all indications are that Connor was in the uterus decomposing in a different but equal manner as the mother for the same duration.Baloney
>>>>>>>>> (Snipped)
Scenerio 2:
Laci confronts burglars in front of her house . Laci walks up at Steve Todd and others were burglarizing the Medina's house directly across the street.
Undetected they are able to subdue her and put her in their van. Yes
The keep her alive for an undisclosed period of time at an undisclosed location. Someone associated with the burglary keeps her alive for approximately 12 days in an undisclosed location.
At some point they kill Laci
At some point they forcefully remove connor from his mother through the Abdomin and the top of Fundas. The baby is removed from Laci's body through an incision in the fundus as she is dying, probably from a gun shot to the head.
They Wrap Connor up in a completely air tight wrapping and fill the cavity of that packaging with water. No, there would be no water inside the package. The package would have been wrapped and tied and placed in cold water, possibly the bay.(according to Dr. Peterson)
Laci is dropped in the ocean, and in some way tethered, keeping her in the ocean for some months. She is placed in an intertidal area of the bay where there is some kind of natural barrier that prevents the body from being found.
Connor is removed from his container months later and placed above the high tide mark within, coincidentially the same time period his mothers body breaks free and is found. The fact that both bodies were found within the same 24 hour period suggests some human intervention, although it is possible that both were kept in the same area and just happened to be washed out into the bay at the same time.
I think you need to look at what Possible and Probable mean. So do you.

If your theory differs from #2, please enlighten me, Im going off of your post excluding your Freezer ideas as even you seem to have backed of of that notion. I'm not sure what the condition of the body would be after being in a freezer for approx. 3 months. So being wrapped and placed in the cold water of the bay (approx. 50 degrees) may be a better option.

Anon



Your completely living in fantasy land:

Why on earth would they remove the baby? for what purpose?

Why would the keep Laci alive for 12 days,for what purpose?

Anon


You aren't dealing with the realities of the evidence.

Someone wanted the baby to keep or more likely to sell. At some point it became too dangerous to keep Laci alive anymore.


Your ignoring the evidence and coming up with fantasy! I though the reason they abducted Laci was to keep from being jailed for life on the 3 strike rule? Now you say their intention was to sell the baby? Might I remind you that the baby died before its first bowel movement!

If the baby was in a freezer for 3 months prior to being put in the bay, there would be little to no decomposition in 50 degree water, and the lack of animal feeding, this and the degradation of the skin prove the body was not frozen!

There is no use in responding to you any more, your theory is a joke filled with fantasy and speculation. You deflect and refuse to answer direct questions, you make claims that are not supported even by the transcripts you cut and paste. You holds experts who favor the defense as un-challengable and in the same breath call experts for the prosecution a liar. There is no consistiency or balance to any of your opinion, you just attack anyone who is not on your side of the argument. You post favorable parts of the transcript to support your claims, and leave out the portions that directly refute.

Can't see how far fetched your theory is and it' total lack of foundation, It changes and morphs as you go! If one follows your theory, your audience is asked to start by making little leaps of faith (Graybil - the only Outlier, who's open gate inference has never been disclosed). From there the leaps get incrementally bigger until you have Meth Head Druggies changing their motives, cutting open bodies, Removing babies to sell on the black market, carefully air-tight wrapping bodies and depositing them on multiple long trips to the marina. If you put a frog in cold water and bring it to a boil, it will die unwittingly, if you throw a frog in boiling water it will jump out. You are in cold water that has already boiled, you have lost any and all perspective!

There was quite alot of discussion in the AK/ES forum about theories and what the stanrads should be. I think it was fairly accepted that, if there were two theories that were both probable and supported by the evidence, one towards guilt and the other towards innocence, the presumption of innocence dictates that the Jury accept the innocent expression.

In this case we have a probable and an in-probable theory, One that is thinly supported by the evidence (Guilt) and another that is supported by hege leaps in speculation (Innocence). I think that is a far representation of the fact in this case. Fast forward a decade and with the presumption of innocence removed, your speculative arguments without foundation have no impact whatsoever!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:06 pm

Anonshy, it really is a waste of my time trying to discuss this case with you. I have made an effort to answer your questions, and then you deliberately misrepresent or ignore things I have said. I don’t know if you have a problem with reading comprehension or if your mind is so filled with guilt bias that you’re unable to think rationally about this case.

I’d suggest that you find a better use of your time than insulting and baiting Scott Peterson supporters.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:56 pm

jane wrote:Anonshy, it really is a waste of my time trying to discuss this case with you. I have made an effort to answer your questions, and then you deliberately misrepresent or ignore things I have said. I don’t know if you have a problem with reading comprehension or if your mind is so filled with guilt bias that you’re unable to think rationally about this case.

I’d suggest that you find a better use of your time than insulting and baiting Scott Peterson supporters.


I'd say that Laci and Connor are not a waste of time, and justice for them is important to me!

What you are doing in the Name of Scott's innocence if horrid.

Burglars Kidnap turned Murder = Speculation
Graybil Open Gate = Speculation (No evidence of this discovery has ever been made in legal proceedings)
Laci Being cut open = Speculation
Connor Being Born Alive = Speculation
Connor Being Frozen = Speculation
Uteral Introversion = Speculation - Peterson Stated it was the uterus of a late term preganacy.
Aposte Statement = Speculation

The list would be too long to continue, needles to say, the major point of your theory are not based on facts, they are made up or hypotheticals that were never referred to as probable.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Feb 23, 2017 5:24 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy, it really is a waste of my time trying to discuss this case with you. I have made an effort to answer your questions, and then you deliberately misrepresent or ignore things I have said. I don’t know if you have a problem with reading comprehension or if your mind is so filled with guilt bias that you’re unable to think rationally about this case.

I’d suggest that you find a better use of your time than insulting and baiting Scott Peterson supporters.


I'd say that Laci and Connor are not a waste of time, and justice for them is important to me!

What you are doing in the Name of Scott's innocence if horrid.

Burglars Kidnap turned Murder = Speculation
Graybil Open Gate = Speculation (No evidence of this discovery has ever been made in legal proceedings)
Laci Being cut open = Speculation
Connor Being Born Alive = Speculation
Connor Being Frozen = Speculation
Uteral Introversion = Speculation - Peterson Stated it was the uterus of a late term preganacy.
Aposte Statement = Speculation

The list would be too long to continue, needles to say, the major point of your theory are not based on facts, they are made up or hypotheticals that were never referred to as probable.

Anon


Anonshy, do you have Spell Check on your computer? You should consider using it.

Justice for Laci and Conner. No one wants that more than the people who support Scott Peterson's innocence.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Feb 24, 2017 7:20 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy, it really is a waste of my time trying to discuss this case with you. I have made an effort to answer your questions, and then you deliberately misrepresent or ignore things I have said. I don’t know if you have a problem with reading comprehension or if your mind is so filled with guilt bias that you’re unable to think rationally about this case.

I’d suggest that you find a better use of your time than insulting and baiting Scott Peterson supporters.


I'd say that Laci and Connor are not a waste of time, and justice for them is important to me!

What you are doing in the Name of Scott's innocence if horrid.

Burglars Kidnap turned Murder = Speculation
Graybil Open Gate = Speculation (No evidence of this discovery has ever been made in legal proceedings)
Laci Being cut open = Speculation
Connor Being Born Alive = Speculation
Connor Being Frozen = Speculation
Uteral Introversion = Speculation - Peterson Stated it was the uterus of a late term preganacy.
Aposte Statement = Speculation

The list would be too long to continue, needles to say, the major point of your theory are not based on facts, they are made up or hypotheticals that were never referred to as probable.

Anon


Anonshy, do you have Spell Check on your computer? You should consider using it.

Justice for Laci and Conner. No one wants that more than the people who support Scott Peterson's innocence.


If your interest is primarily in justice For Laci and Conner, then you would not be putting forth these wild speculative theories in what looks like desperation. They may prove to be a nice little distraction, but it does nothing to promote Scott's innocence and certainly has nothing to do with Justice for Laci and Conner.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:11 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy, it really is a waste of my time trying to discuss this case with you. I have made an effort to answer your questions, and then you deliberately misrepresent or ignore things I have said. I don’t know if you have a problem with reading comprehension or if your mind is so filled with guilt bias that you’re unable to think rationally about this case.

I’d suggest that you find a better use of your time than insulting and baiting Scott Peterson supporters.


I'd say that Laci and Connor are not a waste of time, and justice for them is important to me!

What you are doing in the Name of Scott's innocence if horrid.

Burglars Kidnap turned Murder = Speculation
Graybil Open Gate = Speculation (No evidence of this discovery has ever been made in legal proceedings)
Laci Being cut open = Speculation
Connor Being Born Alive = Speculation
Connor Being Frozen = Speculation
Uteral Introversion = Speculation - Peterson Stated it was the uterus of a late term preganacy.
Aposte Statement = Speculation

The list would be too long to continue, needles to say, the major point of your theory are not based on facts, they are made up or hypotheticals that were never referred to as probable.

Anon


Anonshy, do you have Spell Check on your computer? You should consider using it.

Justice for Laci and Conner. No one wants that more than the people who support Scott Peterson's innocence.


If your interest is primarily in justice For Laci and Conner, then you would not be putting forth these wild speculative theories in what looks like desperation. They may prove to be a nice little distraction, but it does nothing to promote Scott's innocence and certainly has nothing to do with Justice for Laci and Conner.

Anon


On the contrary, our speculation is a search for the truth and based on exculpatory facts hidden or ignored by the police and prosecution during the investigation and the trial.

The prosecution case was based entirely on speculation, fantasy, and lies. It was not a search for the truth but a desire to win at all costs. As a result, an innocent man is sitting on death row.

Blind acceptance of the prosecution case and the testimony of their witnesses is a disservice to Laci, Conner, Scott and their families.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:17 pm

When your speculation has no foundation or evidence to support it, it does a great dis-service. The prosecutions case is weak, there is no denying that, but it did lead to a guilty verdict and that is the reality.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:46 pm

Quite a difference in tone from Garth Stapley, the Modesto Bee reporter who has written more than 400 articles about the case. He now acknowledges that there are 2 sides to the story and that Scott Peterson's appeals are very much alive.

Modesto Bee reporter Garth Stapley answers those questions, and many more, on the latest episode of “History Personified,” a 43-minute podcast produced by history nut and former broadcast journalist Phil Lanides.

http://historypersonified.com/the-laci- ... th-stapley
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:13 am

jane wrote:Quite a difference in tone from Garth Stapley, the Modesto Bee reporter who has written more than 400 articles about the case. He now acknowledges that there are 2 sides to the story and that Scott Peterson's appeals are very much alive.

Modesto Bee reporter Garth Stapley answers those questions, and many more, on the latest episode of “History Personified,” a 43-minute podcast produced by history nut and former broadcast journalist Phil Lanides.

http://historypersonified.com/the-laci- ... th-stapley


Nothing earth shattering here, author/podcaster does not say Scott is innocent.........I would say "Much Ado About Nothing", but more like "Nothing Ado About Nothing".

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:31 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Quite a difference in tone from Garth Stapley, the Modesto Bee reporter who has written more than 400 articles about the case. He now acknowledges that there are 2 sides to the story and that Scott Peterson's appeals are very much alive.

Modesto Bee reporter Garth Stapley answers those questions, and many more, on the latest episode of “History Personified,” a 43-minute podcast produced by history nut and former broadcast journalist Phil Lanides.

http://historypersonified.com/the-laci- ... th-stapley


Nothing earth shattering here, author/podcaster does not say Scott is innocent.........I would say "Much Ado About Nothing", but more like "Nothing Ado About Nothing".

Anon


It's significant that Stapley now acknowledges there are 2 sides to the story and that there are some valid questions raised by the defense. What he thinks, of course, has no effect on the outcome of the appeals. It does, however, offer some hope for a change in the public perception.

By the way, I see why you don't understand our system of appeals. From the other section: Having a Wrongful Conviction overturned in Canada is a very different journey than it is in most other countries. If the appeal fails and most do, you must find fresh evidence and file an application to the Minister of Justice indicating a miscarriage of Justice has occurred. There are no Habeas Corpus hearings here.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Tue Feb 28, 2017 2:03 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Quite a difference in tone from Garth Stapley, the Modesto Bee reporter who has written more than 400 articles about the case. He now acknowledges that there are 2 sides to the story and that Scott Peterson's appeals are very much alive.

Modesto Bee reporter Garth Stapley answers those questions, and many more, on the latest episode of “History Personified,” a 43-minute podcast produced by history nut and former broadcast journalist Phil Lanides.

http://historypersonified.com/the-laci- ... th-stapley


Nothing earth shattering here, author/podcaster does not say Scott is innocent.........I would say "Much Ado About Nothing", but more like "Nothing Ado About Nothing".

Anon


Yeah - if you knew half of what you SHOULD know about this case to be so convinced of Scott's guilt - as you are - you would know that this IS a big deal.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Feb 28, 2017 2:48 pm

lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Quite a difference in tone from Garth Stapley, the Modesto Bee reporter who has written more than 400 articles about the case. He now acknowledges that there are 2 sides to the story and that Scott Peterson's appeals are very much alive.

Modesto Bee reporter Garth Stapley answers those questions, and many more, on the latest episode of “History Personified,” a 43-minute podcast produced by history nut and former broadcast journalist Phil Lanides.

http://historypersonified.com/the-laci- ... th-stapley


Nothing earth shattering here, author/podcaster does not say Scott is innocent.........I would say "Much Ado About Nothing", but more like "Nothing Ado About Nothing".

Anon


Yeah - if you knew half of what you SHOULD know about this case to be so convinced of Scott's guilt - as you are - you would know that this IS a big deal.


Your not really that smart, are you? Some reporter from a small local newspaper does a podcast that falls well short of calling Scott innocent and you trumpet it as a big deal, little wonders I guess. For the record I have never said that Scott is 100% guilty, I would love to hear a credible theory based on the evidence that would promote Scott's innocence. I don't think the initial trial met the standard for a conviction especially in the area of motive and direct evidence, I'm also not deluded enough to ignore the reality of where this case is at. If Scott's flimsy appeals should happen to work, I will be happy to see him get a new trial or at minimum a revision to his sentence. I find the Death Penalty to be cruel and unusual punishment, and it should be abolished.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Feb 28, 2017 2:53 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Quite a difference in tone from Garth Stapley, the Modesto Bee reporter who has written more than 400 articles about the case. He now acknowledges that there are 2 sides to the story and that Scott Peterson's appeals are very much alive.

Modesto Bee reporter Garth Stapley answers those questions, and many more, on the latest episode of “History Personified,” a 43-minute podcast produced by history nut and former broadcast journalist Phil Lanides.

http://historypersonified.com/the-laci- ... th-stapley


Nothing earth shattering here, author/podcaster does not say Scott is innocent.........I would say "Much Ado About Nothing", but more like "Nothing Ado About Nothing".

Anon


It's significant that Stapley now acknowledges there are 2 sides to the story and that there are some valid questions raised by the defense. What he thinks, of course, has no effect on the outcome of the appeals. It does, however, offer some hope for a change in the public perception.

By the way, I see why you don't understand our system of appeals. From the other section: Having a Wrongful Conviction overturned in Canada is a very different journey than it is in most other countries. If the appeal fails and most do, you must find fresh evidence and file an application to the Minister of Justice indicating a miscarriage of Justice has occurred. There are no Habeas Corpus hearings here.



So because I posted a few examples of Canadian wrongful convictions, I am now a Canadian that knows nothing about the US legal system. This is par for the coarse with you Jane, your very good a drawing your opinions without foundation, and as in this case you are simply wrong, neither of your assumptions are correct!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:11 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Quite a difference in tone from Garth Stapley, the Modesto Bee reporter who has written more than 400 articles about the case. He now acknowledges that there are 2 sides to the story and that Scott Peterson's appeals are very much alive.

Modesto Bee reporter Garth Stapley answers those questions, and many more, on the latest episode of “History Personified,” a 43-minute podcast produced by history nut and former broadcast journalist Phil Lanides.

http://historypersonified.com/the-laci- ... th-stapley


Nothing earth shattering here, author/podcaster does not say Scott is innocent.........I would say "Much Ado About Nothing", but more like "Nothing Ado About Nothing".

Anon


It's significant that Stapley now acknowledges there are 2 sides to the story and that there are some valid questions raised by the defense. What he thinks, of course, has no effect on the outcome of the appeals. It does, however, offer some hope for a change in the public perception.

By the way, I see why you don't understand our system of appeals. From the other section: Having a Wrongful Conviction overturned in Canada is a very different journey than it is in most other countries. If the appeal fails and most do, you must find fresh evidence and file an application to the Minister of Justice indicating a miscarriage of Justice has occurred. There are no Habeas Corpus hearings here.



So because I posted a few examples of Canadian wrongful convictions, I am now a Canadian that knows nothing about the US legal system. This is par for the coarse with you Jane, your very good a drawing your opinions without foundation, and as in this case you are simply wrong, neither of your assumptions are correct!

Anon


OK, then what is your excuse for knowing so little?
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:59 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Quite a difference in tone from Garth Stapley, the Modesto Bee reporter who has written more than 400 articles about the case. He now acknowledges that there are 2 sides to the story and that Scott Peterson's appeals are very much alive.

Modesto Bee reporter Garth Stapley answers those questions, and many more, on the latest episode of “History Personified,” a 43-minute podcast produced by history nut and former broadcast journalist Phil Lanides.

http://historypersonified.com/the-laci- ... th-stapley


Nothing earth shattering here, author/podcaster does not say Scott is innocent.........I would say "Much Ado About Nothing", but more like "Nothing Ado About Nothing".

Anon


It's significant that Stapley now acknowledges there are 2 sides to the story and that there are some valid questions raised by the defense. What he thinks, of course, has no effect on the outcome of the appeals. It does, however, offer some hope for a change in the public perception.

By the way, I see why you don't understand our system of appeals. From the other section: Having a Wrongful Conviction overturned in Canada is a very different journey than it is in most other countries. If the appeal fails and most do, you must find fresh evidence and file an application to the Minister of Justice indicating a miscarriage of Justice has occurred. There are no Habeas Corpus hearings here.



So because I posted a few examples of Canadian wrongful convictions, I am now a Canadian that knows nothing about the US legal system. This is par for the coarse with you Jane, your very good a drawing your opinions without foundation, and as in this case you are simply wrong, neither of your assumptions are correct!

Anon


OK, then what is your excuse for knowing so little?


I disagree with you on many occasions, that is something entirely different than "Knowing so little" I know exactly how Habeas works in California, I have even quoted the rules of procedure and evidence in regards to Habeas petitions in this thread and given reason why most of the arguments will fail. Do I know every piece of evidence or every word of testimony in the case, no, I do not. I do however, have the ability to critically think and form my own opinions about the evidence and the process. I also have the ability to recognize garbage when I see it, which is an ability you either lost or never had! and I don't live the life of an 80 year old woman who equates Scott Peterson to the perfect Son she never had.....all those years ago (That will be the only time you see me speculate, but since you opened that door, I think i'm allowed to walk in).

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Feb 28, 2017 4:14 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:It's significant that Stapley now acknowledges there are 2 sides to the story and that there are some valid questions raised by the defense. What he thinks, of course, has no effect on the outcome of the appeals. It does, however, offer some hope for a change in the public perception.

By the way, I see why you don't understand our system of appeals. From the other section: Having a Wrongful Conviction overturned in Canada is a very different journey than it is in most other countries. If the appeal fails and most do, you must find fresh evidence and file an application to the Minister of Justice indicating a miscarriage of Justice has occurred. There are no Habeas Corpus hearings here.



So because I posted a few examples of Canadian wrongful convictions, I am now a Canadian that knows nothing about the US legal system. This is par for the coarse with you Jane, your very good a drawing your opinions without foundation, and as in this case you are simply wrong, neither of your assumptions are correct!

Anon


OK, then what is your excuse for knowing so little?


I disagree with you on many occasions, that is something entirely different than "Knowing so little" I know exactly how Habeas works in California, I have even quoted the rules of procedure and evidence in regards to Habeas petitions in this thread and given reason why most of the arguments will fail. Do I know every piece of evidence or every word of testimony in the case, no, I do not. I do however, have the ability to critically think and form my own opinions about the evidence and the process. I also have the ability to recognize garbage when I see it, which is an ability you either lost or never had! and I don't live the life of an 80 year old woman who equates Scott Peterson to the perfect Son she never had.....all those years ago (That will be the only time you see me speculate, but since you opened that door, I think i'm allowed to walk in).

Anon


Actually, Anonshy, I have 2 perfect sons so you're wrong on that point and the other one.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:07 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:It's significant that Stapley now acknowledges there are 2 sides to the story and that there are some valid questions raised by the defense. What he thinks, of course, has no effect on the outcome of the appeals. It does, however, offer some hope for a change in the public perception.

By the way, I see why you don't understand our system of appeals. From the other section: Having a Wrongful Conviction overturned in Canada is a very different journey than it is in most other countries. If the appeal fails and most do, you must find fresh evidence and file an application to the Minister of Justice indicating a miscarriage of Justice has occurred. There are no Habeas Corpus hearings here.



So because I posted a few examples of Canadian wrongful convictions, I am now a Canadian that knows nothing about the US legal system. This is par for the coarse with you Jane, your very good a drawing your opinions without foundation, and as in this case you are simply wrong, neither of your assumptions are correct!

Anon


OK, then what is your excuse for knowing so little?


I disagree with you on many occasions, that is something entirely different than "Knowing so little" I know exactly how Habeas works in California, I have even quoted the rules of procedure and evidence in regards to Habeas petitions in this thread and given reason why most of the arguments will fail. Do I know every piece of evidence or every word of testimony in the case, no, I do not. I do however, have the ability to critically think and form my own opinions about the evidence and the process. I also have the ability to recognize garbage when I see it, which is an ability you either lost or never had! and I don't live the life of an 80 year old woman who equates Scott Peterson to the perfect Son she never had.....all those years ago (That will be the only time you see me speculate, but since you opened that door, I think i'm allowed to walk in).

Anon


Actually, Anonshy, I have 2 perfect sons so you're wrong on that point and the other one.


I'm sure they are wonderful!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby dobby » Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:28 am

I am not sure whether scott peterson is innocent or guilty but am very confused about the arguments about connor. Babies are all born all different sizes and different weights. Also he was waterlogged with some degeneration. How some people can say he lived to a specific day in January does not make any sense to me. There can be no expert say this because this situation is so rare, thank god, that there cannot be an expert.
dobby
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:11 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Fri Mar 03, 2017 12:27 pm

anonshy wrote:I disagree with you on many occasions, that is something entirely different than "Knowing so little" I know exactly how Habeas works in California, I have even quoted the rules of procedure and evidence in regards to Habeas petitions in this thread and given reason why most of the arguments will fail. Do I know every piece of evidence or every word of testimony in the case, no, I do not. I do however, have the ability to critically think and form my own opinions about the evidence and the process. I also have the ability to recognize garbage when I see it, which is an ability you either lost or never had! and I don't live the life of an 80 year old woman who equates Scott Peterson to the perfect Son she never had.....all those years ago (That will be the only time you see me speculate, but since you opened that door, I think i'm allowed to walk in).

Anon


You ARE a VERY rude person.....and not very good at speculating either. And you think I'M not a very smart person? Go ahead and bask in your ignorance - I'm done trying to educate you. I know, I know....you don't care.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Fri Mar 03, 2017 12:36 pm

jane wrote:Quite a difference in tone from Garth Stapley, the Modesto Bee reporter who has written more than 400 articles about the case. He now acknowledges that there are 2 sides to the story and that Scott Peterson's appeals are very much alive.

Modesto Bee reporter Garth Stapley answers those questions, and many more, on the latest episode of “History Personified,” a 43-minute podcast produced by history nut and former broadcast journalist Phil Lanides.

http://historypersonified.com/the-laci- ... th-stapley



I was very impressed with Garth's interview. Looking forward to the documentary he talks about actually being aired. I was a little disappointed how he answered the last question though.....the Karen Servas thing.....really Garth?...that's the one thing that people don't know that they should know?

But all in all he did an unbiased interview. Makes me hopeful that things "are a changing".
lsmith510
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:42 pm

lsmith510 wrote:
jane wrote:Quite a difference in tone from Garth Stapley, the Modesto Bee reporter who has written more than 400 articles about the case. He now acknowledges that there are 2 sides to the story and that Scott Peterson's appeals are very much alive.

Modesto Bee reporter Garth Stapley answers those questions, and many more, on the latest episode of “History Personified,” a 43-minute podcast produced by history nut and former broadcast journalist Phil Lanides.

http://historypersonified.com/the-laci- ... th-stapley



I was very impressed with Garth's interview. Looking forward to the documentary he talks about actually being aired. I was a little disappointed how he answered the last question though.....the Karen Servas thing.....really Garth?...that's the one thing that people don't know that they should know?

But all in all he did an unbiased interview. Makes me hopeful that things "are a changing".


I know the habeas is being heard, what is the status of the Appeals?

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Fri Mar 03, 2017 5:35 pm

dobby wrote:I am not sure whether scott peterson is innocent or guilty but am very confused about the arguments about connor. Babies are all born all different sizes and different weights. Also he was waterlogged with some degeneration. How some people can say he lived to a specific day in January does not make any sense to me. There can be no expert say this because this situation is so rare, thank god, that there cannot be an expert.


There are experts qualified to give opinions in this area. Dr. Galloway, a forensic anthropologist, testified during the trial. Dr. Jeanty, a fetal biometrist, signed a declaration with his opinion for Scott Peterson's habeas appeal.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby dobby » Sat Mar 04, 2017 8:27 am

There can be experts in this field but without anyone knowing how long Connor was in the uterus and how long he was in the water i cannot see how anyone could give a definite date. With Scott being found guilty, it is up to the defence to prove he is innocent, such as DNA. There are definitely some interesting theories out there but there doesn't seem to be any definite evidence of innocence.
dobby
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:11 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sun Mar 05, 2017 2:55 pm

dobby wrote:There can be experts in this field but without anyone knowing how long Connor was in the uterus and how long he was in the water i cannot see how anyone could give a definite date. With Scott being found guilty, it is up to the defence to prove he is innocent, such as DNA. There are definitely some interesting theories out there but there doesn't seem to be any definite evidence of innocence.


Ultrasound measurements date the pregnancy and the rate of growth. Regular check ups determine that the pregnancy is proceeding normally. On December 23, at Laci's last prenatal visit before her death, the fetus was determined to be a certain age. Measurements of bones taken from the baby's body can be compared to the previous information to determine his age at death.

Using the measurements from 3 long bones and applying the correct formula, Dr. Jeanty determined that the prosecution expert Devore had testified falsely and that, in fact, Conner had lived approximately 10 days after Laci disappeared.

For details about this, read the habeas appeal brief:

http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/uplo ... habeas.pdf
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Mar 06, 2017 8:58 am

[quote="dobby"]There can be experts in this field but without anyone knowing how long Connor was in the uterus and how long he was in the water i cannot see how anyone could give a definite date. With Scott being found guilty, it is up to the defence to prove he is innocent, such as DNA. There are definitely some interesting theories out there but there doesn't seem to be any definite evidence of innocence.[/quote

I have voiced this opinion many times, the reality is - Scott has been convicted and the burden of proof is now reversed. The original trial I think most agree, was lacking in many ways, but as flimsy as you think the original trial evidence was, there is no compelling theory for innocence post conviction. There are disjointed Jabs at procedure, IAOC and the standard Appeal/Habeas. There are wildly speculative theories that are either unexplored or not supported by the evidence.

The Idea that Babies grow at a constant vector and all babies are the same is silly, and not what is really being argued. The contrasting opinions on the babies age come from 2 different beliefs. On the innocence side: the inability for live birth to be ruled out, the measurement of the femur and the condition of the babies remains all work together to prove that Connor was alive after December 24th On the side of guilt, there is the notion that all babies are different and there is no precise method to aging the fetus to the scientific a certainty required to disprove that Connor was dead on the 24th of December. With Dr. Geanty's being a foremost expert in the field of fetal age, it is his formulas that are used by other doctors to make their calculations. Geanty's formulas are based somewhat on standard deviation and inside his tiers there is still a +/- variant. My contention has been that there is not an scientific means to get a precise date that would prove without a doubt that Connor lived past Dec 24th, even using Geanty's formulas and the included variance. There is also some debate about birth rates for different cultures/ethnic background. On the innocence side it is also claimed that Laci's LMP (Last Period) was an exact date and not a reasonable guess, which I also contend is false. (LMP) is used to start the growth vector.

You will hear all sorts of bazaar things if you stick around long enough.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:12 am

jane wrote:
dobby wrote:There can be experts in this field but without anyone knowing how long Connor was in the uterus and how long he was in the water i cannot see how anyone could give a definite date. With Scott being found guilty, it is up to the defence to prove he is innocent, such as DNA. There are definitely some interesting theories out there but there doesn't seem to be any definite evidence of innocence.


Ultrasound measurements date the pregnancy and the rate of growth. Regular check ups determine that the pregnancy is proceeding normally. On December 23, at Laci's last prenatal visit before her death, the fetus was determined to be a certain age. Measurements of bones taken from the baby's body can be compared to the previous information to determine his age at death.

Using the measurements from 3 long bones and applying the correct formula, Dr. Jeanty determined that the prosecution expert Devore had testified falsely and that, in fact, Conner had lived approximately 10 days after Laci disappeared.

For details about this, read the habeas appeal brief:

http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/uplo ... habeas.pdf


If you visit the PWC site, I would suggest you read the overviews of the evidence and judge for yourself if they are purely editirial or if indeed they are factual, Then you can apply that reasoning to everything that is presented. The transcripts are from the court documents and seem to be a reasonable resource. The rest is you can draw your own opinion on.

Jeanty's formulas are based on a standard curve based on statistical percentiles, inside the tiered groupings there is still room for variance, I believe of +/- 3-5 days, This means a possible 6 - 10 day window on top of the suggested percentile tiers. Factor this window with a whole bunch of unknowns surrounding the conditions the fetus was subjected to and there is no scientific certainty that Connor lived past December 24th. We know by the condition of Laci's body that no vaginal delivery took place. Without another reasonable theory based on the evidence, there is nothing to support an expression of innocence regarding Connor's age or Fetal conditions.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Mon Mar 06, 2017 1:55 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
dobby wrote:There can be experts in this field but without anyone knowing how long Connor was in the uterus and how long he was in the water i cannot see how anyone could give a definite date. With Scott being found guilty, it is up to the defence to prove he is innocent, such as DNA. There are definitely some interesting theories out there but there doesn't seem to be any definite evidence of innocence.


Ultrasound measurements date the pregnancy and the rate of growth. Regular check ups determine that the pregnancy is proceeding normally. On December 23, at Laci's last prenatal visit before her death, the fetus was determined to be a certain age. Measurements of bones taken from the baby's body can be compared to the previous information to determine his age at death.

Using the measurements from 3 long bones and applying the correct formula, Dr. Jeanty determined that the prosecution expert Devore had testified falsely and that, in fact, Conner had lived approximately 10 days after Laci disappeared.

For details about this, read the habeas appeal brief:

http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/uplo ... habeas.pdf


If you visit the PWC site, I would suggest you read the overviews of the evidence and judge for yourself if they are purely editirial or if indeed they are factual, Then you can apply that reasoning to everything that is presented. The transcripts are from the court documents and seem to be a reasonable resource. The rest is you can draw your own opinion on.

Jeanty's formulas are based on a standard curve based on statistical percentiles, inside the tiered groupings there is still room for variance, I believe of +/- 3-5 days, This means a possible 6 - 10 day window on top of the suggested percentile tiers. Factor this window with a whole bunch of unknowns surrounding the conditions the fetus was subjected to and there is no scientific certainty that Connor lived past December 24th. We know by the condition of Laci's body that no vaginal delivery took place. Without another reasonable theory based on the evidence, there is nothing to support an expression of innocence regarding Connor's age or Fetal conditions.

Anon


The purpose of the Jeanty declaration in the habeas appeal is to show that Dr. Devore gave false testimony during the trial. Devore used the wrong Jeanty formula and measured only one bone (the femur) instead of the recommended three. Dr. Jeanty himself provided the correct formula and used the measurements of 3 long bones (femur, tibia, humerus) to calculate date of death for Conner as January 3. Even if there is a variance of plus or minus 3-5 days, the earliest date of death would be December 29 and the latest January 8. Therefore, Scott Peterson is innocent.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:43 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
dobby wrote:There can be experts in this field but without anyone knowing how long Connor was in the uterus and how long he was in the water i cannot see how anyone could give a definite date. With Scott being found guilty, it is up to the defence to prove he is innocent, such as DNA. There are definitely some interesting theories out there but there doesn't seem to be any definite evidence of innocence.


Ultrasound measurements date the pregnancy and the rate of growth. Regular check ups determine that the pregnancy is proceeding normally. On December 23, at Laci's last prenatal visit before her death, the fetus was determined to be a certain age. Measurements of bones taken from the baby's body can be compared to the previous information to determine his age at death.

Using the measurements from 3 long bones and applying the correct formula, Dr. Jeanty determined that the prosecution expert Devore had testified falsely and that, in fact, Conner had lived approximately 10 days after Laci disappeared.

For details about this, read the habeas appeal brief:

http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/uplo ... habeas.pdf


If you visit the PWC site, I would suggest you read the overviews of the evidence and judge for yourself if they are purely editirial or if indeed they are factual, Then you can apply that reasoning to everything that is presented. The transcripts are from the court documents and seem to be a reasonable resource. The rest is you can draw your own opinion on.

Jeanty's formulas are based on a standard curve based on statistical percentiles, inside the tiered groupings there is still room for variance, I believe of +/- 3-5 days, This means a possible 6 - 10 day window on top of the suggested percentile tiers. Factor this window with a whole bunch of unknowns surrounding the conditions the fetus was subjected to and there is no scientific certainty that Connor lived past December 24th. We know by the condition of Laci's body that no vaginal delivery took place. Without another reasonable theory based on the evidence, there is nothing to support an expression of innocence regarding Connor's age or Fetal conditions.

Anon


The purpose of the Jeanty declaration in the habeas appeal is to show that Dr. Devore gave false testimony during the trial. Devore used the wrong Jeanty formula and measured only one bone (the femur) instead of the recommended three. Dr. Jeanty himself provided the correct formula and used the measurements of 3 long bones (femur, tibia, humerus) to calculate date of death for Conner as January 3. Even if there is a variance of plus or minus 3-5 days, the earliest date of death would be December 29 and the latest January 8. Therefore, Scott Peterson is innocent.



That would be true if you only look at the general variance of +/-, you also have to factor in the variance inside the standard deviation which accounts for an even larger general variance. There is no scientific proof Connor was alive after December 24th. Is there a possibility the Fetus was alive at the very latest January 6th, yes, that is a possibility. There is also the possibility inside the percentiles and the general variance that connor was dead on December 18th.

Deviations in brackets:
33 65 (4.0)
34 66 (4.0)
35 67 (6.0)
36 69 (6.0)
37 72 (5.5)
38 73 (5.5)
39 75 (6.0)
40 76 (4.0)
41 77 (5.0)

These are the wide ranges I am speaking of. From this chart you can see the standard expected rate of growth and the deviation at each week interval. You can draw your own conclusion as to waht percentile Connor belong to and what the deviation of +/- 5 mm means in terms of fetal length. This is just meant to highlight the how the science does not work in a way to give the exactness implied.

Galloway measured the Femur @ 63.8 mm
Devore Measured the Femur @ 64.5 =/-6 = 70.5 to 58.5 Range
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:13 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
dobby wrote:There can be experts in this field but without anyone knowing how long Connor was in the uterus and how long he was in the water i cannot see how anyone could give a definite date. With Scott being found guilty, it is up to the defence to prove he is innocent, such as DNA. There are definitely some interesting theories out there but there doesn't seem to be any definite evidence of innocence.


Ultrasound measurements date the pregnancy and the rate of growth. Regular check ups determine that the pregnancy is proceeding normally. On December 23, at Laci's last prenatal visit before her death, the fetus was determined to be a certain age. Measurements of bones taken from the baby's body can be compared to the previous information to determine his age at death.

Using the measurements from 3 long bones and applying the correct formula, Dr. Jeanty determined that the prosecution expert Devore had testified falsely and that, in fact, Conner had lived approximately 10 days after Laci disappeared.

For details about this, read the habeas appeal brief:

http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/uplo ... habeas.pdf


If you visit the PWC site, I would suggest you read the overviews of the evidence and judge for yourself if they are purely editirial or if indeed they are factual, Then you can apply that reasoning to everything that is presented. The transcripts are from the court documents and seem to be a reasonable resource. The rest is you can draw your own opinion on.

Jeanty's formulas are based on a standard curve based on statistical percentiles, inside the tiered groupings there is still room for variance, I believe of +/- 3-5 days, This means a possible 6 - 10 day window on top of the suggested percentile tiers. Factor this window with a whole bunch of unknowns surrounding the conditions the fetus was subjected to and there is no scientific certainty that Connor lived past December 24th. We know by the condition of Laci's body that no vaginal delivery took place. Without another reasonable theory based on the evidence, there is nothing to support an expression of innocence regarding Connor's age or Fetal conditions.

Anon


The purpose of the Jeanty declaration in the habeas appeal is to show that Dr. Devore gave false testimony during the trial. Devore used the wrong Jeanty formula and measured only one bone (the femur) instead of the recommended three. Dr. Jeanty himself provided the correct formula and used the measurements of 3 long bones (femur, tibia, humerus) to calculate date of death for Conner as January 3. Even if there is a variance of plus or minus 3-5 days, the earliest date of death would be December 29 and the latest January 8. Therefore, Scott Peterson is innocent.



That would be true if you only look at the general variance of +/-, you also have to factor in the variance inside the standard deviation which accounts for an even larger general variance. There is no scientific proof Connor was alive after December 24th. Is there a possibility the Fetus was alive at the very latest January 6th, yes, that is a possibility. There is also the possibility inside the percentiles and the general variance that connor was dead on December 18th.

Deviations in brackets:
33 65 (4.0)
34 66 (4.0)
35 67 (6.0)
36 69 (6.0)
37 72 (5.5)
38 73 (5.5)
39 75 (6.0)
40 76 (4.0)
41 77 (5.0)

These are the wide ranges I am speaking of. From this chart you can see the standard expected rate of growth and the deviation at each week interval. You can draw your own conclusion as to waht percentile Connor belong to and what the deviation of +/- 5 mm means in terms of fetal length. This is just meant to highlight the how the science does not work in a way to give the exactness implied.

Galloway measured the Femur @ 63.8 mm
Devore Measured the Femur @ 64.5 =/-6 = 70.5 to 58.5 Range


Dr. Jeanty is far more credible than you are.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:30 am

That would be true if you only look at the general variance of +/-, you also have to factor in the variance inside the standard deviation which accounts for an even larger general variance. There is no scientific proof Connor was alive after December 24th. Is there a possibility the Fetus was alive at the very latest January 6th, yes, that is a possibility. There is also the possibility inside the percentiles and the general variance that connor was dead on December 18th.

Deviations in brackets:
33 65 (4.0)
34 66 (4.0)
35 67 (6.0)
36 69 (6.0)
37 72 (5.5)
38 73 (5.5)
39 75 (6.0)
40 76 (4.0)
41 77 (5.0)

These are the wide ranges I am speaking of. From this chart you can see the standard expected rate of growth and the deviation at each week interval. You can draw your own conclusion as to what percentile Connor belong to and what the deviation of +/- 5 mm means in terms of fetal length. This is just meant to highlight the how the science does not work in a way to give the exactness implied.

Galloway measured the Femur @ 63.8 mm
Devore Measured the Femur @ 64.5 =/-6 = 70.5 to 58.5 Range[/quote]

Dr. Jeanty is far more credible than you are.[/quote]

These numbers are taken from Jeanty's charts, so what you are looking at are the gestational ages and allotted deviation from HIS formulas.

Pathologist Peterson is also an expert in this case and you completely ignore him and call him a liar, you then have the nerve to hold Jeanty as unimpeachable, the funny thing is, I just posted his numbers, nothing more. From Jeanty's own charts, it is obvious that there is no scientific way to determine gestational age to the degree of precision you claim. If you are using Jeanty as an impeachment witness to prove that Divore miss-calculated, that is kind of a moot point, as even Divore's calculations fit inside Jeanty's deviation. If the science is correct, it should not matter what bone you decide to measure, Femur, Crown to Rump,etc. the results will be repeatable, with an associated variance, as we see in this case.


Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:42 am

jane wrote:Dr. Jeanty is far more credible than you are.


anonshy wrote:These numbers are taken from Jeanty's charts, so what you are looking at are the gestational ages and allotted deviation from HIS formulas.

Pathologist Peterson is also an expert in this case and you completely ignore him and call him a liar, you then have the nerve to hold Jeanty as unimpeachable, the funny thing is, I just posted his numbers, nothing more. From Jeanty's own charts, it is obvious that there is no scientific way to determine gestational age to the degree of precision you claim. If you are using Jeanty as an impeachment witness to prove that Divore miss-calculated, that is kind of a moot point, as even Divore's calculations fit inside Jeanty's deviation. If the science is correct, it should not matter what bone you decide to measure, Femur, Crown to Rump,etc. the results will be repeatable, with an associated variance, as we see in this case.


Anon


What are you talking about?
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:19 am

jane wrote:
jane wrote:Dr. Jeanty is far more credible than you are.


anonshy wrote:These numbers are taken from Jeanty's charts, so what you are looking at are the gestational ages and allotted deviation from HIS formulas.

Pathologist Peterson is also an expert in this case and you completely ignore him and call him a liar, you then have the nerve to hold Jeanty as unimpeachable, the funny thing is, I just posted his numbers, nothing more. From Jeanty's own charts, it is obvious that there is no scientific way to determine gestational age to the degree of precision you claim. If you are using Jeanty as an impeachment witness to prove that Divore miss-calculated, that is kind of a moot point, as even Divore's calculations fit inside Jeanty's deviation. If the science is correct, it should not matter what bone you decide to measure, Femur, Crown to Rump,etc. the results will be repeatable, with an associated variance, as we see in this case.


Anon


What are you talking about?


You have said previously that Peterson, the expert in pathology was either wrong or has lied in this case, that his theory is either incorrect or fabrication. My point was/is, if you can take the liberty to call into question Peterson's findings, then it is reasonable that Jeanty should be equally scrutinized. These are simple concepts Jane, try to keep up!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Mar 07, 2017 9:09 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
jane wrote:Dr. Jeanty is far more credible than you are.


anonshy wrote:These numbers are taken from Jeanty's charts, so what you are looking at are the gestational ages and allotted deviation from HIS formulas.

Pathologist Peterson is also an expert in this case and you completely ignore him and call him a liar, you then have the nerve to hold Jeanty as unimpeachable, the funny thing is, I just posted his numbers, nothing more. From Jeanty's own charts, it is obvious that there is no scientific way to determine gestational age to the degree of precision you claim. If you are using Jeanty as an impeachment witness to prove that Divore miss-calculated, that is kind of a moot point, as even Divore's calculations fit inside Jeanty's deviation. If the science is correct, it should not matter what bone you decide to measure, Femur, Crown to Rump,etc. the results will be repeatable, with an associated variance, as we see in this case.


Anon


What are you talking about?


You have said previously that Peterson, the expert in pathology was either wrong or has lied in this case, that his theory is either incorrect or fabrication. My point was/is, if you can take the liberty to call into question Peterson's findings, then it is reasonable that Jeanty should be equally scrutinized. These are simple concepts Jane, try to keep up!

Anon


Peterson's only estimate of the age of the baby was that it was a full term infant. He left the analysis of the actual measurements and determination of age to the forensic anthropologist, Allison Galloway. Her measurements of the baby's body put him in the 35-36 week range for an average size fetus. At Laci's last ob-gyn appointment on December 23, the gestational age of the fetus was 33 weeks, 1 day.

Dr. Jeanty is an expert in fetal biometry, the measurement of fetal bones. He is the one who did the studies and created the scientifically accepted standards. Dr. Devore misused Jeanty's information. He selected the wrong study, the wrong formula, and measured only one bone instead of the recommended three.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Mar 07, 2017 9:37 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
jane wrote:Dr. Jeanty is far more credible than you are.


anonshy wrote:These numbers are taken from Jeanty's charts, so what you are looking at are the gestational ages and allotted deviation from HIS formulas.

Pathologist Peterson is also an expert in this case and you completely ignore him and call him a liar, you then have the nerve to hold Jeanty as unimpeachable, the funny thing is, I just posted his numbers, nothing more. From Jeanty's own charts, it is obvious that there is no scientific way to determine gestational age to the degree of precision you claim. If you are using Jeanty as an impeachment witness to prove that Divore miss-calculated, that is kind of a moot point, as even Divore's calculations fit inside Jeanty's deviation. If the science is correct, it should not matter what bone you decide to measure, Femur, Crown to Rump,etc. the results will be repeatable, with an associated variance, as we see in this case.


Anon


What are you talking about?


You have said previously that Peterson, the expert in pathology was either wrong or has lied in this case, that his theory is either incorrect or fabrication. My point was/is, if you can take the liberty to call into question Peterson's findings, then it is reasonable that Jeanty should be equally scrutinized. These are simple concepts Jane, try to keep up!

Anon


Peterson's only estimate of the age of the baby was that it was a full term infant. He left the analysis of the actual measurements and determination of age to the forensic anthropologist, Allison Galloway. Her measurements of the baby's body put him in the 35-36 week range for an average size fetus. At Laci's last ob-gyn appointment on December 23, the gestational age of the fetus was 33 weeks, 1 day.

Dr. Jeanty is an expert in fetal biometry, the measurement of fetal bones. He is the one who did the studies and created the scientifically accepted standards. Dr. Devore misused Jeanty's information. He selected the wrong study, the wrong formula, and measured only one bone instead of the recommended three.


You really are clueless. The point was not about the Experts testimony, rater it is about how you excuse one's findings and promote the others.

I'm not using Divore's chart, I'm using Jeanty's!

"33 weeks, 1 day" do you not understand how silly it is to make that statement! Why don't you just add minutes and seconds to that time?

Once again, when you look even a little deeper into Jane's statements, you find that there is noting to support her claims.

at 64.5mm The Femur length fits anywhere from 32.5 to 36.5 Weeks using the standard deviation and varies additionally by the accuracy of the ultra-sound being used.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Mar 07, 2017 9:39 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
jane wrote:Dr. Jeanty is far more credible than you are.


anonshy wrote:These numbers are taken from Jeanty's charts, so what you are looking at are the gestational ages and allotted deviation from HIS formulas.

Pathologist Peterson is also an expert in this case and you completely ignore him and call him a liar, you then have the nerve to hold Jeanty as unimpeachable, the funny thing is, I just posted his numbers, nothing more. From Jeanty's own charts, it is obvious that there is no scientific way to determine gestational age to the degree of precision you claim. If you are using Jeanty as an impeachment witness to prove that Divore miss-calculated, that is kind of a moot point, as even Divore's calculations fit inside Jeanty's deviation. If the science is correct, it should not matter what bone you decide to measure, Femur, Crown to Rump,etc. the results will be repeatable, with an associated variance, as we see in this case.


Anon


What are you talking about?


You have said previously that Peterson, the expert in pathology was either wrong or has lied in this case, that his theory is either incorrect or fabrication. My point was/is, if you can take the liberty to call into question Peterson's findings, then it is reasonable that Jeanty should be equally scrutinized. These are simple concepts Jane, try to keep up!

Anon


Peterson's only estimate of the age of the baby was that it was a full term infant. He left the analysis of the actual measurements and determination of age to the forensic anthropologist, Allison Galloway. Her measurements of the baby's body put him in the 35-36 week range for an average size fetus. At Laci's last ob-gyn appointment on December 23, the gestational age of the fetus was 33 weeks, 1 day.

Dr. Jeanty is an expert in fetal biometry, the measurement of fetal bones. He is the one who did the studies and created the scientifically accepted standards. Dr. Devore misused Jeanty's information. He selected the wrong study, the wrong formula, and measured only one bone instead of the recommended three.


You really are clueless. The point was not about the Experts testimony, rater it is about how you excuse one's findings and promote the others.

I'm not using Divore's chart, I'm using Jeanty's!

"33 weeks, 1 day" do you not understand how silly it is to make that statement! Why don't you just add minutes and seconds to that time?

Once again, when you look even a little deeper into Jane's statements, you find that there is noting to support her claims.

Anon


33 weeks 1 day was the gestational age of the baby on December 23 from the LMP. That is an absolute. You are the one who is clueless.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Mar 07, 2017 9:55 am

And based on the formula you are using, what is the variance?

The Laci' LMP is not written in stone, 90 % of women do not recall the exact date of their last period, in most cases it is an estimation because they would have missed a cycle.

Ultrasound confirmation of gestational age[edit]
Since the 1970s, ultrasound scans have allowed measurement of the size of developing embryos directly and so allow for an estimation of gestation age. Ultrasound dating is most accurate if undertaken in the first trimester (first 12 weeks of pregnancy) with a 95% error margin of six days. Scans performed in the second trimester have an error margin of 8 daysand those in the third trimester a margin oftwo weeks.

Most obstetric departments in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and United States use a combination of LMP and ultrasound-based estimates for the EDD using either 10-day or 7-day rules, so thatif LMP dates and ultrasonographic dates are in agreement within 7 (or 10) days, then the LMP dates are accepted.

You are a fool if you think you can lock it down to a week and a day!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:00 am

Here is some more research that debunks the myth that Femur growth is in a constant vector once the LMP and initial ultra-scan have been presented.

The shifting trajectory of growth in femur length during gestation.
Bjørnerem A1, Johnsen SL, Nguyen TV, Kiserud T, Seeman E.
Author information
Abstract
Bone size is a determinant of bone strength and tracks in its percentile of origin during childhood and adolescence. We hypothesized that the ranking of an individual's femur length (FL) is established in early gestation and tracks thereafter. Fetal FL was measured serially using 2D ultrasound in 625 Norwegian fetuses. Tracking was assessed using Pearson correlation, a generalized estimating equation model, and by calculating the proportion of fetuses whose FL remained within the same quartile. Baseline FL Z-score (weeks 10 to 19) and later measurements correlated, but more weakly as gestation advanced: r = 0.59 (weeks 20 to 26); r = 0.45 (weeks 27 to 33); and r = 0.32 (weeks 34 to 39) (p < 0.001). Tracking within the same quartile throughout gestation occurred in 13% of fetuses. Of the 87% deviating, 21% returned to the quartile of origin, so 34% began and ended in the same quartile, 38% deviated by one quartile, and 28% deviated by two or more quartiles by the end of gestation. A standard deviation higher baseline FL Z-score, placental weight (150 g), maternal height (5 cm), and weight (10 kg), was associated with a 0.25, 0.15, 0.10, and 0.05 SD higher FL Z-score at the end of gestation, respectively (p ranging from <0.001 to 0.02). Tracking within the same percentile throughout the whole of gestation, as suggest by growth charts, is uncommon. Deviation from tracking is more common and is the result of changes in growth velocity within and between fetuses and is partly influenced by maternal, fetal, and placental factors.
(c) 2010 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:45 am

anonshy wrote:Here is some more research that debunks the myth that Femur growth is in a constant vector once the LMP and initial ultra-scan have been presented.

The shifting trajectory of growth in femur length during gestation.
Bjørnerem A1, Johnsen SL, Nguyen TV, Kiserud T, Seeman E.
Author information
Abstract
Bone size is a determinant of bone strength and tracks in its percentile of origin during childhood and adolescence. We hypothesized that the ranking of an individual's femur length (FL) is established in early gestation and tracks thereafter. Fetal FL was measured serially using 2D ultrasound in 625 Norwegian fetuses. Tracking was assessed using Pearson correlation, a generalized estimating equation model, and by calculating the proportion of fetuses whose FL remained within the same quartile. Baseline FL Z-score (weeks 10 to 19) and later measurements correlated, but more weakly as gestation advanced: r = 0.59 (weeks 20 to 26); r = 0.45 (weeks 27 to 33); and r = 0.32 (weeks 34 to 39) (p < 0.001). Tracking within the same quartile throughout gestation occurred in 13% of fetuses. Of the 87% deviating, 21% returned to the quartile of origin, so 34% began and ended in the same quartile, 38% deviated by one quartile, and 28% deviated by two or more quartiles by the end of gestation. A standard deviation higher baseline FL Z-score, placental weight (150 g), maternal height (5 cm), and weight (10 kg), was associated with a 0.25, 0.15, 0.10, and 0.05 SD higher FL Z-score at the end of gestation, respectively (p ranging from <0.001 to 0.02). Tracking within the same percentile throughout the whole of gestation, as suggest by growth charts, is uncommon. Deviation from tracking is more common and is the result of changes in growth velocity within and between fetuses and is partly influenced by maternal, fetal, and placental factors.
(c) 2010 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Anon


You are cutting and pasting things that aren't relevant.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:46 am

anonshy wrote:And based on the formula you are using, what is the variance?

The Laci' LMP is not written in stone, 90 % of women do not recall the exact date of their last period, in most cases it is an estimation because they would have missed a cycle.

Ultrasound confirmation of gestational age[edit]
Since the 1970s, ultrasound scans have allowed measurement of the size of developing embryos directly and so allow for an estimation of gestation age. Ultrasound dating is most accurate if undertaken in the first trimester (first 12 weeks of pregnancy) with a 95% error margin of six days. Scans performed in the second trimester have an error margin of 8 daysand those in the third trimester a margin oftwo weeks.

Most obstetric departments in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and United States use a combination of LMP and ultrasound-based estimates for the EDD using either 10-day or 7-day rules, so thatif LMP dates and ultrasonographic dates are in agreement within 7 (or 10) days, then the LMP dates are accepted.

You are a fool if you think you can lock it down to a week and a day!

Anon


Ask any woman who is trying to get pregnant if she knows the date of her LMP? It's a sure bet that she will.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:49 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:Here is some more research that debunks the myth that Femur growth is in a constant vector once the LMP and initial ultra-scan have been presented.

The shifting trajectory of growth in femur length during gestation.
Bjørnerem A1, Johnsen SL, Nguyen TV, Kiserud T, Seeman E.
Author information
Abstract
Bone size is a determinant of bone strength and tracks in its percentile of origin during childhood and adolescence. We hypothesized that the ranking of an individual's femur length (FL) is established in early gestation and tracks thereafter. Fetal FL was measured serially using 2D ultrasound in 625 Norwegian fetuses. Tracking was assessed using Pearson correlation, a generalized estimating equation model, and by calculating the proportion of fetuses whose FL remained within the same quartile. Baseline FL Z-score (weeks 10 to 19) and later measurements correlated, but more weakly as gestation advanced: r = 0.59 (weeks 20 to 26); r = 0.45 (weeks 27 to 33); and r = 0.32 (weeks 34 to 39) (p < 0.001). Tracking within the same quartile throughout gestation occurred in 13% of fetuses. Of the 87% deviating, 21% returned to the quartile of origin, so 34% began and ended in the same quartile, 38% deviated by one quartile, and 28% deviated by two or more quartiles by the end of gestation. A standard deviation higher baseline FL Z-score, placental weight (150 g), maternal height (5 cm), and weight (10 kg), was associated with a 0.25, 0.15, 0.10, and 0.05 SD higher FL Z-score at the end of gestation, respectively (p ranging from <0.001 to 0.02). Tracking within the same percentile throughout the whole of gestation, as suggest by growth charts, is uncommon. Deviation from tracking is more common and is the result of changes in growth velocity within and between fetuses and is partly influenced by maternal, fetal, and placental factors.
(c) 2010 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Anon


You are cutting and pasting things that aren't relevant.


Why is it not relevant?

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:54 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:And based on the formula you are using, what is the variance?

The Laci' LMP is not written in stone, 90 % of women do not recall the exact date of their last period, in most cases it is an estimation because they would have missed a cycle.

Ultrasound confirmation of gestational age[edit]
Since the 1970s, ultrasound scans have allowed measurement of the size of developing embryos directly and so allow for an estimation of gestation age. Ultrasound dating is most accurate if undertaken in the first trimester (first 12 weeks of pregnancy) with a 95% error margin of six days. Scans performed in the second trimester have an error margin of 8 daysand those in the third trimester a margin oftwo weeks.

Most obstetric departments in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and United States use a combination of LMP and ultrasound-based estimates for the EDD using either 10-day or 7-day rules, so thatif LMP dates and ultrasonographic dates are in agreement within 7 (or 10) days, then the LMP dates are accepted.

You are a fool if you think you can lock it down to a week and a day!

Anon


Ask any woman who is trying to get pregnant if she knows the date of her LMP? It's a sure bet that she will.


This is all fine if you are uniformed and believe that a women ovulates on the same day of her cycle every month, that is not true and adds to the general variance listed in the 7-10 day rule after the first ultra-sound. So as long as the fetal development falls within a 7-10 day window, there is no need to change the LMP.

"Don’t Women Ovulate On The 14th Day After Their Period Starts?

Unfortunately this is a myth that many, including healthcare professionals, still believe. The “14th day” thinking appears to come from either taking the average of when all women ovulate or from just dividing the 28 day cycle in half. This is not an accurate way to calculate ovulation because many women do NOT ovulate on the 14th day of their cycle.

The day of ovulation differs from woman to woman and can even be different from month to month for an individual woman. For a woman with a 28 day cycle, the window of ovulation is day 11 through day 21 of your cycle. Ovulation could occur on any one day during this window."

So even if you think yo know your LMP, it is not an accurate indication of when ovulation took place, there is an 11 day window!

Does not matter, the standard deviations and the FL tracking document take care of any of the feeble arguments you offer up.

The FL document was posted in 2010 and is new scientific research that, if presented at the original trial would directly refute any claims that Connor was born after Dec 24th.

I enjoy your one sentence answers, seems to happen only when you can't deal with or understand the information presented to you!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:41 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:And based on the formula you are using, what is the variance?

The Laci' LMP is not written in stone, 90 % of women do not recall the exact date of their last period, in most cases it is an estimation because they would have missed a cycle.

Ultrasound confirmation of gestational age[edit]
Since the 1970s, ultrasound scans have allowed measurement of the size of developing embryos directly and so allow for an estimation of gestation age. Ultrasound dating is most accurate if undertaken in the first trimester (first 12 weeks of pregnancy) with a 95% error margin of six days. Scans performed in the second trimester have an error margin of 8 daysand those in the third trimester a margin oftwo weeks.

Most obstetric departments in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and United States use a combination of LMP and ultrasound-based estimates for the EDD using either 10-day or 7-day rules, so thatif LMP dates and ultrasonographic dates are in agreement within 7 (or 10) days, then the LMP dates are accepted.

You are a fool if you think you can lock it down to a week and a day!

Anon


Ask any woman who is trying to get pregnant if she knows the date of her LMP? It's a sure bet that she will.


This is all fine if you are uniformed and believe that a women ovulates on the same day of her cycle every month, that is not true and adds to the general variance listed in the 7-10 day rule after the first ultra-sound. So as long as the fetal development falls within a 7-10 day window, there is no need to change the LMP.

"Don’t Women Ovulate On The 14th Day After Their Period Starts?

Unfortunately this is a myth that many, including healthcare professionals, still believe. The “14th day” thinking appears to come from either taking the average of when all women ovulate or from just dividing the 28 day cycle in half. This is not an accurate way to calculate ovulation because many women do NOT ovulate on the 14th day of their cycle.

The day of ovulation differs from woman to woman and can even be different from month to month for an individual woman. For a woman with a 28 day cycle, the window of ovulation is day 11 through day 21 of your cycle. Ovulation could occur on any one day during this window."

So even if you think yo know your LMP, it is not an accurate indication of when ovulation took place, there is an 11 day window!

Does not matter, the standard deviations and the FL tracking document take care of any of the feeble arguments you offer up.

The FL document was posted in 2010 and is new scientific research that, if presented at the original trial would directly refute any claims that Connor was born after Dec 24th.

I enjoy your one sentence answers, seems to happen only when you can't deal with or understand the information presented to you!

Anon


Gestational age is calculated from the date of the LMP, not the date of ovulation.

On December 23, Conner was a 33 week 1 day old fetus calculated from the date of Laci's LMP, May 6, 2002. This date is documented in her medical records.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:27 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:And based on the formula you are using, what is the variance?

The Laci' LMP is not written in stone, 90 % of women do not recall the exact date of their last period, in most cases it is an estimation because they would have missed a cycle.

Ultrasound confirmation of gestational age[edit]
Since the 1970s, ultrasound scans have allowed measurement of the size of developing embryos directly and so allow for an estimation of gestation age. Ultrasound dating is most accurate if undertaken in the first trimester (first 12 weeks of pregnancy) with a 95% error margin of six days. Scans performed in the second trimester have an error margin of 8 daysand those in the third trimester a margin oftwo weeks.

Most obstetric departments in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and United States use a combination of LMP and ultrasound-based estimates for the EDD using either 10-day or 7-day rules, so thatif LMP dates and ultrasonographic dates are in agreement within 7 (or 10) days, then the LMP dates are accepted.

You are a fool if you think you can lock it down to a week and a day!

Anon


Ask any woman who is trying to get pregnant if she knows the date of her LMP? It's a sure bet that she will.


This is all fine if you are uniformed and believe that a women ovulates on the same day of her cycle every month, that is not true and adds to the general variance listed in the 7-10 day rule after the first ultra-sound. So as long as the fetal development falls within a 7-10 day window, there is no need to change the LMP.

"Don’t Women Ovulate On The 14th Day After Their Period Starts?

Unfortunately this is a myth that many, including healthcare professionals, still believe. The “14th day” thinking appears to come from either taking the average of when all women ovulate or from just dividing the 28 day cycle in half. This is not an accurate way to calculate ovulation because many women do NOT ovulate on the 14th day of their cycle.

The day of ovulation differs from woman to woman and can even be different from month to month for an individual woman. For a woman with a 28 day cycle, the window of ovulation is day 11 through day 21 of your cycle. Ovulation could occur on any one day during this window."

So even if you think yo know your LMP, it is not an accurate indication of when ovulation took place, there is an 11 day window!

Does not matter, the standard deviations and the FL tracking document take care of any of the feeble arguments you offer up.

The FL document was posted in 2010 and is new scientific research that, if presented at the original trial would directly refute any claims that Connor was born after Dec 24th.

I enjoy your one sentence answers, seems to happen only when you can't deal with or understand the information presented to you!

Anon


Gestational age is calculated from the date of the LMP, not the date of ovulation.

On December 23, Conner was a 33 week 1 day old fetus calculated from the date of Laci's LMP, May 6, 2002. This date is documented in her medical records.


If doctors could get the precise date and time of conception, that is what they would use. Secondarily they would use Date of Ovulation, They settle for LMP because it has a general range that is inclusive of Conception and Ovulation in the cycle. Ovulation and Conception is an 11 day window and the LMP is considered accurate to a variant equal to the ovulation window 7-10 days. LMP is the least accurate expression but the only data provided that may be known by the patient.

This is exactly why there is a 7-10 day rule for LMP, to correct any difference in ovulation. If the First ultra-sound shows a gestational age greater than 10 days in either direction, the LMP is corrected. if it is within that range 7-10 days (which shadows the Ovulation Window) the LMP is considered correct but it is still within a variance of 7-10 days. The true fetal age is within the 7-10 day window, and that vectors out through the pregnancy. DO you not get this, do you not understand that it is an impossibility to say 33 Weeks and 1 day!. With the new research into Femur length and it variability, this adds to the overall inability of this particular science to have the accuracy you are claiming!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:50 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:And based on the formula you are using, what is the variance?

The Laci' LMP is not written in stone, 90 % of women do not recall the exact date of their last period, in most cases it is an estimation because they would have missed a cycle.

Ultrasound confirmation of gestational age[edit]
Since the 1970s, ultrasound scans have allowed measurement of the size of developing embryos directly and so allow for an estimation of gestation age. Ultrasound dating is most accurate if undertaken in the first trimester (first 12 weeks of pregnancy) with a 95% error margin of six days. Scans performed in the second trimester have an error margin of 8 daysand those in the third trimester a margin oftwo weeks.

Most obstetric departments in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and United States use a combination of LMP and ultrasound-based estimates for the EDD using either 10-day or 7-day rules, so thatif LMP dates and ultrasonographic dates are in agreement within 7 (or 10) days, then the LMP dates are accepted.

You are a fool if you think you can lock it down to a week and a day!

Anon


Ask any woman who is trying to get pregnant if she knows the date of her LMP? It's a sure bet that she will.


This is all fine if you are uniformed and believe that a women ovulates on the same day of her cycle every month, that is not true and adds to the general variance listed in the 7-10 day rule after the first ultra-sound. So as long as the fetal development falls within a 7-10 day window, there is no need to change the LMP.

"Don’t Women Ovulate On The 14th Day After Their Period Starts?

Unfortunately this is a myth that many, including healthcare professionals, still believe. The “14th day” thinking appears to come from either taking the average of when all women ovulate or from just dividing the 28 day cycle in half. This is not an accurate way to calculate ovulation because many women do NOT ovulate on the 14th day of their cycle.

The day of ovulation differs from woman to woman and can even be different from month to month for an individual woman. For a woman with a 28 day cycle, the window of ovulation is day 11 through day 21 of your cycle. Ovulation could occur on any one day during this window."

So even if you think yo know your LMP, it is not an accurate indication of when ovulation took place, there is an 11 day window!

Does not matter, the standard deviations and the FL tracking document take care of any of the feeble arguments you offer up.

The FL document was posted in 2010 and is new scientific research that, if presented at the original trial would directly refute any claims that Connor was born after Dec 24th.

I enjoy your one sentence answers, seems to happen only when you can't deal with or understand the information presented to you!

Anon


Gestational age is calculated from the date of the LMP, not the date of ovulation.

On December 23, Conner was a 33 week 1 day old fetus calculated from the date of Laci's LMP, May 6, 2002. This date is documented in her medical records.


If doctors could get the precise date and time of conception, that is what they would use. Secondarily they would use Date of Ovulation, They settle for LMP because it has a general range that is inclusive of Conception and Ovulation in the cycle. Ovulation and Conception is an 11 day window and the LMP is considered accurate to a variant equal to the ovulation window 7-10 days. LMP is the least accurate expression but the only data provided that may be known by the patient.

This is exactly why there is a 7-10 day rule for LMP, to correct any difference in ovulation. If the First ultra-sound shows a gestational age greater than 10 days in either direction, the LMP is corrected. if it is within that range 7-10 days (which shadows the Ovulation Window) the LMP is considered correct but it is still within a variance of 7-10 days. The true fetal age is within the 7-10 day window, and that vectors out through the pregnancy. DO you not get this, do you not understand that it is an impossibility to say 33 Weeks and 1 day!. With the new research into Femur length and it variability, this adds to the overall inability of this particular science to have the accuracy you are claiming!

Anon


You are wrong about this. I will say it one more time. Gestational age is calculated from the date of the LMP, not the date of ovulation. This is the standard. On December 23, Conner was 33 weeks, 1 day old calculated from the date of Laci's LMP which was May 6, 2002.

May 6, 2002 to December 23, 2002 is a total of 232 days. The age of the baby at death according to Dr. Jeanty was 242 days.

Do some research about the calculation of the gestational age.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Mar 07, 2017 3:13 pm

[quote/]Do some research about the calculation of the gestational age.[/quote]

You can see the charts and the research in my previous posts, they are accurate and pulled from reliable sources. that is research!

It is very simple Jane if a baby is conceived on the first possible day in the ovulation window of 11 days, compared to a baby that is conceived in the last day of the ovulation window, even inside the same uncorrected LMP there is a variance of +/- 11 days, so the doctor who takes the first ultrasound in the first trimester will not change the LMP date if the baby falls within a growth range of almost 11 days of growth. LMP in itself means very little as it is a mask for the larger ovulation window. To put this in very clear words - inside an established LMP, a baby can have a feta age difference of 10 days!

Couple the above variance with the newest reasearch (Article posted Above - The shifting trajectory of growth in femur length during gestation) and you can see that it is a very small percentage babies where FL is constant, and in the majority of cases there is a wide range where the FL slows and speeds up throughout gestation.

Anyone who would put a gestational age down to a single day is a fool, if that is what Jeanty is stating then he is a liar who is not backing up his statement with his own research/articles/charts and formulas

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Possible Wrongful Convictions: Member Submissions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron