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
84
79%
No
22
21%
 
Total votes : 106

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:33 am

Some pregnancy terms and methods of calculation:

EDC by LMP is calculated by adding 280 days (40 weeks) to the first day of the last menstrual period.
Gestation by LMP is calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period.

http://reference.medscape.com/calculato ... ultrasound
jane
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Mar 08, 2017 1:47 pm

jane wrote:Some pregnancy terms and methods of calculation:

EDC by LMP is calculated by adding 280 days (40 weeks) to the first day of the last menstrual period.
Gestation by LMP is calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period.

http://reference.medscape.com/calculato ... ultrasound


Do you think women ovulate on the same day every cycle (Day 14)?

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:41 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Some pregnancy terms and methods of calculation:

EDC by LMP is calculated by adding 280 days (40 weeks) to the first day of the last menstrual period.
Gestation by LMP is calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period.

http://reference.medscape.com/calculato ... ultrasound


Do you think women ovulate on the same day every cycle (Day 14)?

Anon


No. And, in fact, when Dr. Yip did Laci's second ultrasound, the results showed that the baby was either 6 days younger than originally estimated or smaller than average. Therefore, he revised the EDC to February 16 instead of the original due date of February 10. Not all doctors would do that given the same circumstances.

However, what that would mean for the date of death is that it would be 6 days later than Jeanty's estimate of January 3. It would mean that Conner lived 16 days after Laci went missing.
jane
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:47 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Some pregnancy terms and methods of calculation:

EDC by LMP is calculated by adding 280 days (40 weeks) to the first day of the last menstrual period.
Gestation by LMP is calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period.

http://reference.medscape.com/calculato ... ultrasound


Do you think women ovulate on the same day every cycle (Day 14)?

Anon


No. And, in fact, when Dr. Yip did Laci's second ultrasound, the results showed that the baby was either 6 days younger than originally estimated or smaller than average. Therefore, he revised the EDC to February 16 instead of the original due date of February 10. Not all doctors would do that given the same circumstances.

However, what that would mean for the date of death is that it would be 6 days later than Jeanty's estimate of January 3. It would mean that Conner lived 16 days after Laci went missing.


So now Jeanty is wrong based on your math. this just keeps getting better. I know you want to keep closing the window but disagreeing with your own expert.... What you have just admitted with your previous post is that there is a great degree of variance to this science. Up-thread you were iron-clad, what was it "LMP yada yada yada = 33weeks 1 day", now you are casting doubt on the expert you used to make that determination. At this point Jane, I don't think even you know what you believe, it changes, flip flops. I will say it again, now using your own statement as reference: This science is not accurate to the the degree in which it is being relied on.

These are a list of variables to consider:
Ovulation window 11 days
Conception Window 4 days
EDC Variable within +/- 6 Days
Average Weekly FL Length Variation 5.5 Days

There is no direct testimony from the trial record (that I could find), only reference to Dr. Yip in the doctors notes. There should have been NO EDC adjustment made for a 6 day Variance, it just muddies the waters, especially now when there is scientific research and evidence that babies grow at different rates and velocities throughout gestation.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:05 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Some pregnancy terms and methods of calculation:

EDC by LMP is calculated by adding 280 days (40 weeks) to the first day of the last menstrual period.
Gestation by LMP is calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period.

http://reference.medscape.com/calculato ... ultrasound


Do you think women ovulate on the same day every cycle (Day 14)?

Anon


No. And, in fact, when Dr. Yip did Laci's second ultrasound, the results showed that the baby was either 6 days younger than originally estimated or smaller than average. Therefore, he revised the EDC to February 16 instead of the original due date of February 10. Not all doctors would do that given the same circumstances.

However, what that would mean for the date of death is that it would be 6 days later than Jeanty's estimate of January 3. It would mean that Conner lived 16 days after Laci went missing.


So now Jeanty is wrong based on your math. this just keeps getting better. I know you want to keep closing the window but disagreeing with your own expert.... What you have just admitted with your previous post is that there is a great degree of variance to this science. Up-thread you were iron-clad, what was it "LMP yada yada yada = 33weeks 1 day", now you are casting doubt on the expert you used to make that determination. At this point Jane, I don't think even you know what you believe, it changes, flip flops. I will say it again, now using your own statement as reference: This science is not accurate to the the degree in which it is being relied on.

These are a list of variables to consider:
Ovulation window 11 days
Conception Window 4 days
EDC Variable within +/- 6 Days
Average Weekly FL Length Variation 5.5 Days

There is no direct testimony from the trial record (that I could find), only reference to Dr. Yip in the doctors notes. There should have been NO EDC adjustment made for a 6 day Variance, it just muddies the waters, especially now when there is scientific research and evidence that babies grow at different rates and velocities throughout gestation.

Anon


Jeanty is not wrong. His calculations based on the correct formula and the measurements of 3 long bones would still come out to 242 gestational days as the baby's age at death. You do understand that his calculations were based on the length of bones removed from the dead baby's body. The length of those bones does not change.

Jeanty is not the person who determined the baby's gestational age throughout the pregnancy up until December 23. That was done by Dr. Yip and his associates at the Hera Medical group. *The gestational age on December 23 calculated by LMP was 232 days. The gestational age on December 23 calculated by the results of the second ultrasound was 226 days according to Dr. Yip's interpretation.
jane
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby dobby » Fri Mar 10, 2017 6:13 am

I don't think anyone could estimate the precise date. Being in a dead woman's uterus and being in the water, for who knows how long, I feel would have to definitely affect the measurements.
This will not free Scott Peterson.
dobby
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:11 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:35 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Some pregnancy terms and methods of calculation:

EDC by LMP is calculated by adding 280 days (40 weeks) to the first day of the last menstrual period.
Gestation by LMP is calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period.

http://reference.medscape.com/calculato ... ultrasound


Do you think women ovulate on the same day every cycle (Day 14)?

Anon


No. And, in fact, when Dr. Yip did Laci's second ultrasound, the results showed that the baby was either 6 days younger than originally estimated or smaller than average. Therefore, he revised the EDC to February 16 instead of the original due date of February 10. Not all doctors would do that given the same circumstances.

However, what that would mean for the date of death is that it would be 6 days later than Jeanty's estimate of January 3. It would mean that Conner lived 16 days after Laci went missing.


So now Jeanty is wrong based on your math. this just keeps getting better. I know you want to keep closing the window but disagreeing with your own expert.... What you have just admitted with your previous post is that there is a great degree of variance to this science. Up-thread you were iron-clad, what was it "LMP yada yada yada = 33weeks 1 day", now you are casting doubt on the expert you used to make that determination. At this point Jane, I don't think even you know what you believe, it changes, flip flops. I will say it again, now using your own statement as reference: This science is not accurate to the the degree in which it is being relied on.

These are a list of variables to consider:
Ovulation window 11 days
Conception Window 4 days
EDC Variable within +/- 6 Days
Average Weekly FL Length Variation 5.5 Days

There is no direct testimony from the trial record (that I could find), only reference to Dr. Yip in the doctors notes. There should have been NO EDC adjustment made for a 6 day Variance, it just muddies the waters, especially now when there is scientific research and evidence that babies grow at different rates and velocities throughout gestation.

Anon


Jeanty is not wrong. His calculations based on the correct formula and the measurements of 3 long bones would still come out to 242 gestational days as the baby's age at death. You do understand that his calculations were based on the length of bones removed from the dead baby's body. The length of those bones does not change.

Jeanty is not the person who determined the baby's gestational age throughout the pregnancy up until December 23. That was done by Dr. Yip and his associates at the Hera Medical group. *The gestational age on December 23 calculated by LMP was 232 days. The gestational age on December 23 calculated by the results of the second ultrasound was 226 days according to Dr. Yip's interpretation.


In you previous post you just stated that Connor was actually 6 days younger, so Jeanty is wrong based on that opinion.

Jane, you lack the understanding and comprehension to understand the Variations and how they determine the accuracy of this science. Any third part person who reads this post, looks at the data in a reasonable way, will see that my position is valid. Your position is based on a Jeanty "Says So" mentality.

In this last string of posts I have posted information (some of it new research):

LMP - lack off accuracy in general leading to the 7-10 Rule - YOu say LMP is correct yet Yip changes for a 6 day variation
Ovulation Window - 11 Days for possible conception
Conception Window - 4 Days
FL Gestational age - New studies finds Variable velocities in growth patterns - dismissed out of hand by you.

There really is no reason to continue discussing this aspect with anyone who is convinced fetal age can be determined to a week and an exact day.

To summarize:

Laci's initial LMP was wrong, Yip wrongfully adjusted for a 6 day variance, but admittedly their was a vaiance.

FL and other long bones do not grow at a fixed rate, they grow at different speeds at different times during gestataion - This accounts for a possible variance in the fetus's FL Length.

Inside Jenatys Formulas there is an average +/-5mm variance at every week interval, and at some weekly intervals the expected growth is less than the possible Variance. 64.5mm fits anywhere within a four week window

EDC has an expected variance of +/- 6 days

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:29 am

You are missing the point, anonshy. Whether the baby was 226 or 232 days gestation at Laci's last appointment on December 23, he was 242 days gestation when he died. That means Scott Peterson is innocent.

So, don't bother to throw around any more numbers trying to confuse the issue.
jane
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:53 pm

jane wrote:You are missing the point, anonshy. Whether the baby was 226 or 232 days gestation at Laci's last appointment on December 23, he was 242 days gestation when he died. That means Scott Peterson is innocent.

So, don't bother to throw around any more numbers trying to confuse the issue.


That statement says it all - This is all based on standard deviation, numbers and formulas! Jeanty is the only opinion that matters to you, and that's fine. None of his research or formulas are accurate to the number you just posted. Its good that you put it in such direct terms, it shows your inflexibility even when presented with other supporting evidence, the contrasts are what people who read these forums will notice. 99 percent of people if asked would agree to the variability of fetal growth. it is reasonable and makes sense!

Jane, Here is the Standard Jeanty Chart, show me where there is any week without variance? 242 Days (34 Weeks + 5 Days) excluding FL/Growth Velocity Variant = 59mm on 95% to 66mm on the 5%. You cant just use the 50%, you have to account for the entire range!

For 242 Days Gestation (34 Weeks 5 Days), there is a Femur Length range of 58mm to 67mm (11mm Range).

For 232 Days Gestation (33 Weeks 1 Day(, there is a Femur Length range of 57mm to 67mm (10mm Range)

Baby is considered Full Term any time after 37 Weeks, The Femur Length range at 37 weeks is 65mm to 67 mm - at under 65mm Connor was not Full Term Baby)

Galloway had 63.8mm and Devore had 64.5 -we'll split the difference and call it 64mm. 64mm Femur Length range = 30 Weeks 4 Days to 36 Weeks 6 Days Gestational age. That is 44 Day Range from 5% to 95% of the population!

SIZE --------------AGE-------------
MM 50% 5% 95%
10 13+0 12+1 13+6
11 13+2 12+3 14+1
12 13+4 12+5 14+4
13 13+6 13+0 14+6
14 14+1 13+1 15+1
15 14+3 13+3 15+3
16 14+5 13+5 15+6
17 15+0 14+0 16+1
18 15+2 14+2 16+3
19 15+5 14+4 16+6
20 16+0 14+6 17+1
21 16+2 15+1 17+3
22 16+4 15+3 17+6
23 16+6 15+5 18+1
24 17+2 16+0 18+4
25 17+4 16+2 18+6
26 17+6 16+4 19+2
27 18+2 16+6 19+5
28 18+4 17+1 20+0
29 18+6 17+4 20+3
30 19+2 17+6 20+5
31 19+4 18+1 21+1
32 20+0 18+3 21+4
33 20+2 18+5 22+0
34 20+5 19+1 22+2
35 21+0 19+3 22+5
36 21+3 19+5 23+1
37 21+5 20+1 32+4
38 22+1 20+3 24+0
39 22+4 20+5 24+3
40 22+6 21+1 24+6
41 23+2 21+3 25+2
42 23+5 21+6 25+5
43 24+1 22+1 26+1
44 24+3 22+4 26+4
45 24+6 22+6 27+1
46 25+2 23+2 27+4
47 25+5 23+4 28+0
48 26+1 24+0 28+3
49 26+4 24+3 29+0
50 27+0 24+5 29+3
51 27+3 25+1 30+0
52 27+6 25+4 30+3
53 28+2 26+0 31+0
54 28+5 26+2 31+3
55 29+2 26+5 32+0
56 29+5 27+1 32+3
57 30+1 27+4 33+0
58 30+4 28+0 33+4
59 31+1 28+3 34+1
60 31+4 28+6 34+4
61 32+1 29+2 35+1
62 32+4 29+5 35+5
63 33+1 30+1 36+2
64 33+4 30+4 36+6
65 34+1 31+0 37+3
66 34+4
31+3 38+0
67 35+1 32+0 38+5

ANON
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:38 pm

Anonshy, you are mistaken when you say that there is great variation in the growth of a fetus once the growth percentile has been established.

The second ultrasound establishes the growth percentile of the fetus. The fetus will continue to grow along a growth curve for that percentile unless there is some sort of pathology. Laci's second ultrasound showed that Conner was growing in the average range a bit less than the 50th percentile.

This is an explanation from Dr. Devore:

....the fetus, for example, can be -- can grow at the 90th percentile, which is growing at the upper range of normal for its age; or it can grow at the 50th percentile, where it grows average for its age; or in the lower percentiles. And so this gives us an idea of how big it was at that time -- at the time that it was done. And we can use that to determine what that potential growth would be in the future.
HARRIS: You are talking about growth percentiles. What is that?
DEVORE: Well, the way to think about it is that each individual has his own unique growth potential genetically determined. And that sometimes can be can altered by environmental things. But we know that fetuses, for example, they can be a tall fetus, medium size fetus, and short fetus. That short fetus grows primarily at lower part of the growth curve. The curve is a distribution. And percentile means, for example, say it was a tenth percentile. That means these fetuses are bigger than ten percent of the population, these are smaller than ninety percent of the fetuses. The 50th percentile would mean you are right smack in the middle. You are growing like the average of the population.
HARRIS: If I can interrupt there. To get to the bottom understanding of that. This growth curve, or this growth percentile, are there statistics or information available, standard publications that doctors use in looking at that?
DEVORE: Yes. That are called growth curves. And a growth curve will have a range. For example, bottom range, an upper range, a middle range. That's usually how they are graphed out. Then from that you can then plot the growth of a fetus, how it's growing.
jane
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:17 pm

jane wrote:Anonshy, you are mistaken when you say that there is great variation in the growth of a fetus once the growth percentile has been established.

The second ultrasound establishes the growth percentile of the fetus. The fetus will continue to grow along a growth curve for that percentile unless there is some sort of pathology. Laci's second ultrasound showed that Conner was growing in the average range a bit less than the 50th percentile.

This is an explanation from Dr. Devore:

....the fetus, for example, can be -- can grow at the 90th percentile, which is growing at the upper range of normal for its age; or it can grow at the 50th percentile, where it grows average for its age; or in the lower percentiles. And so this gives us an idea of how big it was at that time -- at the time that it was done. And we can use that to determine what that potential growth would be in the future.
HARRIS: You are talking about growth percentiles. What is that?
DEVORE: Well, the way to think about it is that each individual has his own unique growth potential genetically determined. And that sometimes can be can altered by environmental things. But we know that fetuses, for example, they can be a tall fetus, medium size fetus, and short fetus. That short fetus grows primarily at lower part of the growth curve. The curve is a distribution. And percentile means, for example, say it was a tenth percentile. That means these fetuses are bigger than ten percent of the population, these are smaller than ninety percent of the fetuses. The 50th percentile would mean you are right smack in the middle. You are growing like the average of the population.
HARRIS: If I can interrupt there. To get to the bottom understanding of that. This growth curve, or this growth percentile, are there statistics or information available, standard publications that doctors use in looking at that?
DEVORE: Yes. That are called growth curves. And a growth curve will have a range. For example, bottom range, an upper range, a middle range. That's usually how they are graphed out. Then from that you can then plot the growth of a fetus, how it's growing.


Your wrong. I posted a concise 2010 study that examined the velocity of Gestational development in the Femur Length, and it completely dispells any notion that growth is at a constant vector, it speeds up, slows down and 87% of babies do not stay in their own precentiles. and 62% of babies are born in 2-4 percentiles outside their projection!

The chart above further illustrates the variance not only in length but also in percentiles and gestational week ranges.

Here is the Newer research on Fetal Growth Velocity:

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: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:48 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy, you are mistaken when you say that there is great variation in the growth of a fetus once the growth percentile has been established.

The second ultrasound establishes the growth percentile of the fetus. The fetus will continue to grow along a growth curve for that percentile unless there is some sort of pathology. Laci's second ultrasound showed that Conner was growing in the average range a bit less than the 50th percentile.

This is an explanation from Dr. Devore:

....the fetus, for example, can be -- can grow at the 90th percentile, which is growing at the upper range of normal for its age; or it can grow at the 50th percentile, where it grows average for its age; or in the lower percentiles. And so this gives us an idea of how big it was at that time -- at the time that it was done. And we can use that to determine what that potential growth would be in the future.
HARRIS: You are talking about growth percentiles. What is that?
DEVORE: Well, the way to think about it is that each individual has his own unique growth potential genetically determined. And that sometimes can be can altered by environmental things. But we know that fetuses, for example, they can be a tall fetus, medium size fetus, and short fetus. That short fetus grows primarily at lower part of the growth curve. The curve is a distribution. And percentile means, for example, say it was a tenth percentile. That means these fetuses are bigger than ten percent of the population, these are smaller than ninety percent of the fetuses. The 50th percentile would mean you are right smack in the middle. You are growing like the average of the population.
HARRIS: If I can interrupt there. To get to the bottom understanding of that. This growth curve, or this growth percentile, are there statistics or information available, standard publications that doctors use in looking at that?
DEVORE: Yes. That are called growth curves. And a growth curve will have a range. For example, bottom range, an upper range, a middle range. That's usually how they are graphed out. Then from that you can then plot the growth of a fetus, how it's growing.


Your wrong. I posted a concise 2010 study that examined the velocity of Gestational development in the Femur Length, and it completely dispells any notion that growth is at a constant vector, it speeds up, slows down and 87% of babies do not stay in their own precentiles. and 62% of babies are born in 2-4 percentiles outside their projection!

The chart above further illustrates the variance not only in length but also in percentiles and gestational week ranges.

Here is the Newer research on Fetal Growth Velocity:

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


That's why it is more accurate to measure the length of 3 long bones to determine gestational age at death. That's what Jeanty did.

And the measurement of gestational age in the second ultrasound was not based on just femur length. It also included:
Abdominal circumference
Head circumference
Biparietal diameter
jane
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:35 am

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Anonshy, you are mistaken when you say that there is great variation in the growth of a fetus once the growth percentile has been established.

The second ultrasound establishes the growth percentile of the fetus. The fetus will continue to grow along a growth curve for that percentile unless there is some sort of pathology. Laci's second ultrasound showed that Conner was growing in the average range a bit less than the 50th percentile.

This is an explanation from Dr. Devore:

....the fetus, for example, can be -- can grow at the 90th percentile, which is growing at the upper range of normal for its age; or it can grow at the 50th percentile, where it grows average for its age; or in the lower percentiles. And so this gives us an idea of how big it was at that time -- at the time that it was done. And we can use that to determine what that potential growth would be in the future.
HARRIS: You are talking about growth percentiles. What is that?
DEVORE: Well, the way to think about it is that each individual has his own unique growth potential genetically determined. And that sometimes can be can altered by environmental things. But we know that fetuses, for example, they can be a tall fetus, medium size fetus, and short fetus. That short fetus grows primarily at lower part of the growth curve. The curve is a distribution. And percentile means, for example, say it was a tenth percentile. That means these fetuses are bigger than ten percent of the population, these are smaller than ninety percent of the fetuses. The 50th percentile would mean you are right smack in the middle. You are growing like the average of the population.
HARRIS: If I can interrupt there. To get to the bottom understanding of that. This growth curve, or this growth percentile, are there statistics or information available, standard publications that doctors use in looking at that?
DEVORE: Yes. That are called growth curves. And a growth curve will have a range. For example, bottom range, an upper range, a middle range. That's usually how they are graphed out. Then from that you can then plot the growth of a fetus, how it's growing.


Your wrong. I posted a concise 2010 study that examined the velocity of Gestational development in the Femur Length, and it completely dispells any notion that growth is at a constant vector, it speeds up, slows down and 87% of babies do not stay in their own precentiles. and 62% of babies are born in 2-4 percentiles outside their projection!

The chart above further illustrates the variance not only in length but also in percentiles and gestational week ranges.

Here is the Newer research on Fetal Growth Velocity:

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


That's why it is more accurate to measure the length of 3 long bones to determine gestational age at death. That's what Jeanty did.

And the measurement of gestational age in the second ultrasound was not based on just femur length. It also included:
Abdominal circumference
Head circumference
Biparietal diameter



Abdominal, Head Circ crown rump and Biparietal not possible in this case due to decomposition of the skull and soft tissue. so you are left with the same variance and velocity changes in all long bones. Just admit that Gestational age is an "estimation" science, that is why there is such a wide range in the percentiles. I will post the other long-bone charts as well if I have to, but they look exactly the same in terms of percentiles and variance , factor in velocity changes and the results are the same. There is no way to use any long bone measurements to determine the age of a fetus without a very large variance. Gestational age for the purposes of a murder trial, in this case - it can't be used as an expression of Scott's innocence or guilt, it can't produce that level of accuracy. To suggest that Scott is innocent based on a science that has a variance of over a month from 5th to 95th percentile (44 Days) is just flat out false. I suspect that Jeanty's statement on Devore may be an impeachment on the formula applied, but he would be contradicting his own statistics and formulas if he came to any conclusion that was based on a specific week and day without listing variances. Jeanty would be easily impeached based on his own public research, records and medical journal posts..

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Mar 14, 2017 6:47 am

Here is the Biparietal Diameter Variance (sumarized) at only 2 Standard Diviations!

VARIABILITY ESTIMATES (+ 2 SD)
12-18 wks + 1.2 wks
18-24 wks + 1.7 wks
24-30 wks + 2.2 wks
30-36 wks + 3.1 wks
36-42 wks + 3.2 wks


Crown to Rump Based on only 2 Standard Deviations!

VARIABILITY ESTIMATES (+ 2 SD)
12-18 wks + 1.3 wks
18-24 wks + 1.6 wks
24-30 wks + 2.3 wks
30-36 wks + 2.7 wks
34-42 wks + 3.4 wks


Abdominal Circumfrence in percentiles

Abdominal Circumference (cm)

Weeks 3rd 10th 50th 90th 97th
14 6.4 6.7 7.3 7.9 8.3
15 7.5 7.9 8.6 9.3 9.7
16 8.6 9.1 9.9 10.7 11.2
17 9.7 10.3 11.2 12.1 12.7
18 10.9 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.1
19 11.9 12.6 13.7 14.8 15.5
20 13.1 13.8 15.0 16.3 17.0
21 14.1 14.9 16.2 17.6 18.3
22 15.1 16.0 17.4 18.8 19.7
23 16.1 17.0 18.5 20.0 20.9
24 17.1 18.1 19.7 21.3 22.3
25 18.1 19.1 20.8 22.5 23.5
26 19.1 20.1 21.9 23.7 24.8
27 20.0 21.1 23.0 24.9 26.0
28 20.9 22.0 24.0 26.0 27.1
29 21.8 23.0 25.1 27.2 28.4
30 22.7 23.9 26.1 28.3 29.5
31 23.6 24.9 27.1 29.4 30.6
32 24.5 25.8 28.1 30.4 31.8
33 25.3 26.7 29.1 31.5 32.9
34 26.1 27.5 30.0 32.5 33.9
35 26.9 28.3 30.9 33.5 34.9
36 27.7 29.2 31.8 34.4 35.9
37 28.5 30.0 32.7 35.4 37.0
38 29.2 30.8 33.6 36.4 38.0
39 29.9 31.6 34.4 37.3 38.9
40 30.7 32.4 35.3 38.2 39.9


All Fetal Long Bones in Weeks and percentiles

Tibia (%) Fibula (%) Femur (%) Humerus (%) Ulna (%) Radius (%)
Week 5th 50th 95th 5th 50th 95th 5th 50th 95th 5th 50th 95th 5th 50th 95th 5th 50th 95th
12 - 7 - - 6 - 4 8 13 - 9 - - 7 - - 7 -
13 - 10 - - 9 - 6 11 16 6 11 16 5 10 15 6 10 14
16 12 17 22 13 18 23 15 20 24 15 20 25 13 18 23 13 18 22
17 15 20 25 13 21 28 18 23 27 18 22 27 16 21 26 14 20 26
18 17 22 27 15 23 31 21 25 30 20 25 30 19 24 29 15 22 29
19 20 25 30 19 26 33 24 28 33 23 28 33 21 26 31 20 24 29
20 22 27 33 21 28 36 26 31 36 25 30 35 24 29 34 22 27 32
21 25 30 35 24 31 37 29 34 38 28 33 38 26 31 36 24 29 33
22 27 32 38 27 33 39 32 36 41 30 35 40 28 33 38 27 31 34
23 30 35 40 28 35 42 35 39 44 33 38 42 31 36 41 26 32 39
24 32 37 42 29 37 45 37 42 46 35 40 45 33 38 43 26 34 42
25 34 40 45 34 40 45 40 44 49 37 42 47 35 40 45 31 36 41
26 37 42 47 36 42 47 42 47 51 39 44 49 37 42 47 32 37 43
27 39 44 49 37 44 50 45 49 54 41 46 51 39 44 49 33 39 45
28 41 46 51 38 45 53 47 52 56 43 48 53 41 46 51 33 40 48
29 43 48 53 41 47 54 50 54 59 45 50 55 43 48 53 36 42 47
30 45 50 55 43 49 56 52 56 61 47 51 56 44 49 54 36 42 47
31 47 52 57 42 51 59 54 59 63 48 53 58 46 51 56 38 44 50
32 48 54 59 42 52 63 56 61 65 50 55 60 48 53 58 37 45 53
33 50 55 60 46 54 62 58 63 67 51 56 61 49 54 59 41 46 51
34 52 57 62 46 55 65 60 65 69 53 58 63 51 56 61 40 47 53
35 53 58 64 51 57 62 62 67 71 54 59 64 52 57 62 41 48 54
36 55 60 65 54 58 63 64 68 73 56 61 65 53 58 63 39 48 57
37 56 61 67 54 59 65 65 70 74 57 62 67 55 60 65 45 49 53

Percentiles, Ranges, Variance rule the day in this estimating science!

Jeanty makes 2 errors in the Habeas:
1: He assumes the the fetus grew at a constant rate (New Research shows this is almost always false)
2: He assumes 50th persentile without any variance.

In the habeas Jeanty's tells us the conditions were he would be wrong:

" Once again, assuming Conner was growing at a constant rate"
The fact that this line is include as overall precursor to everything Jeanty says, tells us that there are growth rate changes. Get this guy befor a prosecutor and he will have to admit to the larger window incorporating his own statistical variances. Even without the new information on FL Velocity, Jeantys own statistical work would mean a much wider window that would far surpass the December 24th to January 10th time frame.

This is repeated for each long, so Jeanty is not lying outright, but he is limiting his results to limited scope parameters that are not consistent with the science or in this case!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:16 am

Regular office visits showed that the fetus was growing at a constant rate up until December 23. There's no reason to believe that there would have been any wide variation in his growth percentile in the approximately 10 days he lived after that time.
jane
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:10 am

jane wrote:Regular office visits showed that the fetus was growing at a constant rate up until December 23. There's no reason to believe that there would have been any wide variation in his growth percentile in the approximately 10 days he lived after that time.



The only thing tangible to discuss and it is what is important to this case is the gestational age. Gestational age through long bones is a statistical presumptive science based on estimations and population data. There is nothing in this science that is accurate enough to determine if Connor died after December 15th or before January 15th. Your assumption of Connor in the 50 Percentile on December 23rd is wrong! we already know that Dr. Yip change the EDC based on an inaccurate LMP and a less than 6 days variation. There is no vector at the beginning or throughout this pregnancy that states 50th Precentile. Even Jeanty states "IF there was consistient growth", he does not claim that Connor's growth was consistient, that is telling in itself!

You are closed minded and foolish not to see what is right in front of your face, you want to ignore facts and replace it with fantasy. You tasked me with being more knowledgible in this case which was probably a fair comment at the time. I took the time to read all of the transcripts over Gestational age, looked at both sides of the argument. I went so far as to re-read the Habeas petition. Once I read everything I could, I looked from the standpoint of innocence and tried to prove that the science was accurate enough for Scott to be innocent. At every turn, this went south, I could not find any expert even Jeanty himself that could predict the the Gestiational age down to a specific week/day. Did Devore use the wrong formula, perhaps, but even he was wrong to estimate down to a week/day. Even Devores mis-calculated result is well withing the variance window.

You keep kidding yourself, I'm a lay-person and it is easy to see that your statements are not based on fact
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:18 am

jane wrote:Regular office visits showed that the fetus was growing at a constant rate up until December 23. There's no reason to believe that there would have been any wide variation in his growth percentile in the approximately 10 days he lived after that time.


The variation also means he could have died in mid December, but you cant seem to understand that fact!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:23 am

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Regular office visits showed that the fetus was growing at a constant rate up until December 23. There's no reason to believe that there would have been any wide variation in his growth percentile in the approximately 10 days he lived after that time.


The variation also means he could have died in mid December, but you cant seem to understand that fact!

Anon


There's something that you don't understand. Perhaps this explanation by Devore will help.

......we know how old the fetus is. We have a very accurate way of determining that. So, therefore, what we do, and we still use the same equation, therefore, the fetus is of a certain percentile, which we determined in the second trimester femur length, I can use my equation of approximate data age for that measurement, I can then say, hey, now, what would you be expected to be if you grew along that profile, to the 50th percentile out someplace in the distant.
GERAGOS: And what is the variation on that growth profile?
DEVORE: Well, we don't know what the variation is for that growth profile.
GERAGOS: Right. So it could be larger, it could be at a faster rate or a slower rate, right?
DEVORE: It could be, but remember I said also that we didn't have any evidence the fetus had pathology that would alter the birth rate. Most fetuses grow at a normal rate. There are a few of them grow at an altered rate and they have reasons for that. And there was no evidence in the clinical record to suggest that.
jane
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:13 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Regular office visits showed that the fetus was growing at a constant rate up until December 23. There's no reason to believe that there would have been any wide variation in his growth percentile in the approximately 10 days he lived after that time.


The variation also means he could have died in mid December, but you cant seem to understand that fact!

Anon


There's something that you don't understand. Perhaps this explanation by Devore will help.

......we know how old the fetus is. We have a very accurate way of determining that. So, therefore, what we do, and we still use the same equation, therefore, the fetus is of a certain percentile, which we determined in the second trimester femur length, I can use my equation of approximate data age for that measurement, I can then say, hey, now, what would you be expected to be if you grew along that profile, to the 50th percentile out someplace in the distant.
GERAGOS: And what is the variation on that growth profile?
DEVORE: Well, we don't know what the variation is for that growth profile.
GERAGOS: Right. So it could be larger, it could be at a faster rate or a slower rate, right?
DEVORE: It could be, but remember I said also that we didn't have any evidence the fetus had pathology that would alter the birth rate. Most fetuses grow at a normal rate. There are a few of them grow at an altered rate and they have reasons for that. And there was no evidence in the clinical record to suggest that.


Thanks for posting that, Devore is wrong, He is unaware of Gestational velocity and can't remember the Variance's.

Notice the word "approximate"

Notice Devore's "Well, we don't know what the variation is for that growth profile"

Devore will not score you points, you disagree with him anyways! You can't pick and choose, he is either right or wrong, not just right when it suit you!

There is nothing in your post that disputes Gestational Velocity or the Variance in percentile ranges. It very clear that you do not understand the concepts. There is no need to respond to my posts, as simple as these concepts are, you fail to grasps them, If your not here to debate these things, why stay?

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:45 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Regular office visits showed that the fetus was growing at a constant rate up until December 23. There's no reason to believe that there would have been any wide variation in his growth percentile in the approximately 10 days he lived after that time.


The variation also means he could have died in mid December, but you cant seem to understand that fact!

Anon


There's something that you don't understand. Perhaps this explanation by Devore will help.

......we know how old the fetus is. We have a very accurate way of determining that. So, therefore, what we do, and we still use the same equation, therefore, the fetus is of a certain percentile, which we determined in the second trimester femur length, I can use my equation of approximate data age for that measurement, I can then say, hey, now, what would you be expected to be if you grew along that profile, to the 50th percentile out someplace in the distant.
GERAGOS: And what is the variation on that growth profile?
DEVORE: Well, we don't know what the variation is for that growth profile.
GERAGOS: Right. So it could be larger, it could be at a faster rate or a slower rate, right?
DEVORE: It could be, but remember I said also that we didn't have any evidence the fetus had pathology that would alter the birth rate. Most fetuses grow at a normal rate. There are a few of them grow at an altered rate and they have reasons for that. And there was no evidence in the clinical record to suggest that.


Thanks for posting that, Devore is wrong, He is unaware of Gestational velocity and can't remember the Variance's.

Notice the word "approximate"

Notice Devore's "Well, we don't know what the variation is for that growth profile"

Devore will not score you points, you disagree with him anyways! You can't pick and choose, he is either right or wrong, not just right when it suit you!

There is nothing in your post that disputes Gestational Velocity or the Variance in percentile ranges. It very clear that you do not understand the concepts. There is no need to respond to my posts, as simple as these concepts are, you fail to grasps them, If your not here to debate these things, why stay?

Anon


The one Norwegian study that you posted does not override accepted scientific standards.

The thing about Devore is that he does understand the scientific standards; and that makes it even more despicable that he deliberately manipulated information to support the prosecution case.

If you will stop posting, I will stop responding.
jane
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:27 pm

jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:
anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Regular office visits showed that the fetus was growing at a constant rate up until December 23. There's no reason to believe that there would have been any wide variation in his growth percentile in the approximately 10 days he lived after that time.


The variation also means he could have died in mid December, but you cant seem to understand that fact!

Anon


There's something that you don't understand. Perhaps this explanation by Devore will help.

......we know how old the fetus is. We have a very accurate way of determining that. So, therefore, what we do, and we still use the same equation, therefore, the fetus is of a certain percentile, which we determined in the second trimester femur length, I can use my equation of approximate data age for that measurement, I can then say, hey, now, what would you be expected to be if you grew along that profile, to the 50th percentile out someplace in the distant.
GERAGOS: And what is the variation on that growth profile?
DEVORE: Well, we don't know what the variation is for that growth profile.
GERAGOS: Right. So it could be larger, it could be at a faster rate or a slower rate, right?
DEVORE: It could be, but remember I said also that we didn't have any evidence the fetus had pathology that would alter the birth rate. Most fetuses grow at a normal rate. There are a few of them grow at an altered rate and they have reasons for that. And there was no evidence in the clinical record to suggest that.


Thanks for posting that, Devore is wrong, He is unaware of Gestational velocity and can't remember the Variance's.

Notice the word "approximate"

Notice Devore's "Well, we don't know what the variation is for that growth profile"

Devore will not score you points, you disagree with him anyways! You can't pick and choose, he is either right or wrong, not just right when it suit you!

There is nothing in your post that disputes Gestational Velocity or the Variance in percentile ranges. It very clear that you do not understand the concepts. There is no need to respond to my posts, as simple as these concepts are, you fail to grasps them, If your not here to debate these things, why stay?

Anon


The one Norwegian study that you posted does not override accepted scientific standards.

The thing about Devore is that he does understand the scientific standards; and that makes it even more despicable that he deliberately manipulated information to support the prosecution case.

If you will stop posting, I will stop responding.



Done, we'll see how long you last!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby JackIsBack » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:43 am

jane wrote:The truth is much more obvious and local. The case could easily have been solved within a week if the lead detectives looking for their 15 minutes of fame had not ignored all evidence that pointed away from Scott Peterson.


Oh boy do I agree.... and how do I wish they would have done their job - it's criminal what the police did. The evidence suggest that Laci was not killed immediately and was savable if the police only followed other leads - like the Tom Harshman lead... or the Tracy California sighting.
JackIsBack
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:22 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby JackIsBack » Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:31 am

All these numbers....WOW! I agree, the problem with relying on the age of Connor is that the answers will also give you a wide range of variances and therefore a wide range of ages.

We also don't need to prove who did it... we just need to prove that Scott couldn't do it - and I think that's very easy.

For Scott to be guilty... he would of had to put a pregnant Laci in the Bay during his boating (fishing) trip... so if we can prove that Laci was alive after Scott left for his warehouse on Christmas Eve, and/or prove that Conner was handled outside of Laci's body - then Scott must be excluded as a suspect.

So here are my questions:

1) How did that twine get around Conner's neck? It was too small of an opening to simple allow for Conner's neck (and arm) to slip inside. It was also too complicated of a knot (a knot with a bow tied on top) to be randomly created by nature. There was human intervention here = Scott is innocent.

2) How did Conner's body get over the debris line (by 2 to 3 feet) to the place it was discovered. There was some intervention here too - even so, this alone doesn't prove Scott is innocent - just another source of evidence.

3) The bodies were way too preserved to be placed in the bay for well over 100 days - this is just not possible or even probable - there was some source of preservation going on here that's not natural.

4) What about all the eye witness that saw Laci walking after Scott left. What about the Tom Harshman tip?

5) How did Mckenzie get put in the back yard and why didn't the Mail delivery person notice. (the Dog always barked at him when she was in the backyard). The whole time thing of placing the dog in the back yard by the neighbour is just wrong... Karen's initial estimation on the time would be far more accurate then relying on a cash receipt from a temporary cash register that was often unplugged and only used during holiday sales events and not calibrated. There is a little thing that we just went through called "Day Light Savings" - that can explain a 1 hour variation in the set time on the register fairly easily. The police screwed up here by not checking the cash register's time immediately. When the defence checked over a year later - the time was wrong by a whole day (I think 23 hours).


Scott is innocent ... I know that... it's time this Injustice gets overturned.
JackIsBack
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:22 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:59 pm

In fairness to Jane, I have some new information to post that has not been seen previously, So in light of our agreed embargo, I would like to reach out to Jane prior to posting. Jane are you ok with continuing this conversation?

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:02 pm

anonshy wrote:Quote snipped............

The chemical reaction (Adipocere) in the skin to soap is known to have limitations, Two such limitations are temperature and exposure to oxygen. So here you have an expert that believes the bodies where submerged for 3-6 months based on the remains, he also believes the body had been dried. We know that Laci was missing for only 4 months and the reaction itself can take up to 3 months without interruption in perfect condition. It is far more likely given Connor's preservation and the lack of any insect feeding that the bodies were indeed submerged for the entire period, this is also self confirming, as the bodies were found in an area where water depths were sufficient to conceal the remains. this also has the cumulative effect of strengthening the Dog scent hit as this was a location where the parameters, met the condition of the remains. The idea that portions of Lac's body would have broken away make sense if she was anchored, the condition of Connor is also supported by the submersion. These pieces of evidence lend credence to one another. The body would have dried considerably when it washed ashore.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Its not enough to just throw out incosistiencies without tying it all together. if Laci's body was continually submerged then dried, it is not evidence of Scott's innocence.

Anon


Anon - you seem like an intelligent man - so I'd like to ask your opinion about something. Let's pretend we are both neutral when it comes to this case and just discuss the mineral deposits in Laci's pants. We can obviously also consider the adipocere on her torso when discussing. Let's also assume for the sake of this discussion that Dr. Peterson was a somewhat intelligent doctor and that he was correct when assessing these stones as some type of mineralization from salt. And that they were smooth, discrete deposits like he described.

There was a book written years ago about the Peterson case. And the mineral deposits found in Laci's pants were briefly addressed in the book. This is what they said in the book:

Q: What were the "discrete deposits" Dr. Peterson described (in the preliminary
hearing) on Laci's tattered clothing?

A: Concretions can form underwater with no exposure to the air. Magnesium nodules are mined as a source of almost pure magnesium. Quite often, concretions or deposits form as the result of biological activity and respiration (expelling CO2), which causes a localized chemical imbalance causing a precipitate to form. It happens more often in salt water due to the higher concentration of minerals. If an object were subject to alternate wetting and drying, the deposits would be uniform over the surface exposed and not in discrete stones.


Does this seem like a possible explanation to you as to how mineralization from salt could occur underwater? Remember - neutral, honest answer!
lsmith510
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:23 pm

I'm no expert ,that's for certain!

What we have is a contrast between the lack of oxygen needed for Adipocere and the need for CO'2 to create deposits. The lack of Oxygen is not a direct indication of the presence of O2 so the two are not mutually exclusive, in fact The air we breathe has a very low concentration of actual oxygen. I really don't know what the deposits were or what was required for them to form. I think the fact that the material was only present in the frayed portions of what was left of Lac's clothes is somewhat telling, perhaps this material was picked up on the bodies path out of the ocean. Laci did not have much skin left so the Adipocere was not in large concentrations, for what that's worth. If I'm being honest, I really don't know the origin of the substance, so I'm not sure if that goes to innocence or Guilt, it is certainly an interesting point for discussion.

Was there something more precise you wanted an answer for, if so I missed it in your question.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:50 pm

anonshy wrote:I'm no expert ,that's for certain!

What we have is a contrast between the lack of oxygen needed for Adipocere and the need for CO'2 to create deposits. The lack of Oxygen is not a direct indication of the presence of O2 so the two are not mutually exclusive, in fact The air we breathe has a very low concentration of actual oxygen. I really don't know what the deposits were or what was required for them to form. I think the fact that the material was only present in the frayed portions of what was left of Lac's clothes is somewhat telling, perhaps this material was picked up on the bodies path out of the ocean. Laci did not have much skin left so the Adipocere was not in large concentrations, for what that's worth. If I'm being honest, I really don't know the origin of the substance, so I'm not sure if that goes to innocence or Guilt, it is certainly an interesting point for discussion.

Was there something more precise you wanted an answer for, if so I missed it in your question.

Anon


Thanks....I think you answered my question. :D

My son is studying to be a Geologist - and I talked to him about the "stones" possibly being discrete salt deposits formed from the drying - rewetting process that Dr. Peterson described. His answer was - maybe - but he said this would not have been from Laci floating in the open bay....he said that she would have had to have been somewhere - like along the shoreline - where the tide was coming in and out - where that area of her pants had to have COMPLETELY dried, repeatedly. And this obviously would have had to have taken place over a period of time. I also then asked him if this could have happened first - like Laci was placed on the shoreline, where these deposits formed - and then she was washed out into the deeper water where the adipocere could have formed - but he said no - because if these deposits were made of salt - they would have been water soluble and would have dissolved in the water. So if I understood him correctly - if those were discrete deposits made from the salt in the water - she had to have been along the shoreline much longer than anyone thought she was - after she spent time underwater.

I haven't had a chance to ask him about the above excerpt from the book.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:06 pm

anonshy wrote:In fairness to Jane, I have some new information to post that has not been seen previously, So in light of our agreed embargo, I would like to reach out to Jane prior to posting. Jane are you ok with continuing this conversation?

Anon


You didn't last long. :lol: So, go ahead and post. One of us will probably respond.
jane
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:33 pm

lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:I'm no expert ,that's for certain!

What we have is a contrast between the lack of oxygen needed for Adipocere and the need for CO'2 to create deposits. The lack of Oxygen is not a direct indication of the presence of O2 so the two are not mutually exclusive, in fact The air we breathe has a very low concentration of actual oxygen. I really don't know what the deposits were or what was required for them to form. I think the fact that the material was only present in the frayed portions of what was left of Lac's clothes is somewhat telling, perhaps this material was picked up on the bodies path out of the ocean. Laci did not have much skin left so the Adipocere was not in large concentrations, for what that's worth. If I'm being honest, I really don't know the origin of the substance, so I'm not sure if that goes to innocence or Guilt, it is certainly an interesting point for discussion.

Was there something more precise you wanted an answer for, if so I missed it in your question.

Anon


Thanks....I think you answered my question. :D

My son is studying to be a Geologist - and I talked to him about the "stones" possibly being discrete salt deposits formed from the drying - rewetting process that Dr. Peterson described. His answer was - maybe - but he said this would not have been from Laci floating in the open bay....he said that she would have had to have been somewhere - like along the shoreline - where the tide was coming in and out - where that area of her pants had to have COMPLETELY dried, repeatedly. And this obviously would have had to have taken place over a period of time. I also then asked him if this could have happened first - like Laci was placed on the shoreline, where these deposits formed - and then she was washed out into the deeper water where the adipocere could have formed - but he said no - because if these deposits were made of salt - they would have been water soluble and would have dissolved in the water. So if I understood him correctly - if those were discrete deposits made from the salt in the water - she had to have been along the shoreline much longer than anyone thought she was - after she spent time underwater.

I haven't had a chance to ask him about the above excerpt from the book.


Like I said, I really don't know what the deposits mean, the deposits and the Adipocere are incompatible in a greater sense, you really should see one or the other but not both. Certainly something there that needs to be further explored.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:43 pm

I had an email conversation with OBGYN expert and he outright stated that in late gestation, (regardless of original early scans), the best accuracy level in gestational age is within the 2 weeks range. Very informative conversation, the expert also agreed that 60% of women do not know, or get their LMP wrong, and if it were possible conception date would be the most accurate starting point for any pregnancy dating. The expert also accepted the idea of Gestational growth Velocity changes and in fact had worked on a similar study, which had similar results.

So just an update to some of the concepts I had brought up in recent posts.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:09 pm

anonshy wrote:I had an email conversation with OBGYN expert and he outright stated that in late gestation, (regardless of original early scans), the best accuracy level in gestational age is within the 2 weeks range. Very informative conversation, the expert also agreed that 60% of women do not know, or get their LMP wrong, and if it were possible conception date would be the most accurate starting point for any pregnancy dating. The expert also accepted the idea of Gestational growth Velocity changes and in fact had worked on a similar study, which had similar results.

So just an update to some of the concepts I had brought up in recent posts.

Anon


You should ask him if he's ever heard of Dr. Phillipe Jeanty and what he thinks of his reputation. :-)

And ask him what does it mean if the EDC calculated by the LMP falls within a day of the EDC calculated by a 10 week ultrasound (as it did in Laci's case)? Would that "lock in" the EDC?

And last question...could a fetus growing in the 50th percentile for the majority of it's pregnancy have a growth spurt at 33 weeks that would cause his percentile to jump to the 99th percentile?
lsmith510
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:11 pm

anonshy wrote:
jane wrote:Do some research about the calculation of the gestational age.


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


Actually it was Devore that said he could pinpoint Conner's date of death down to a 3 day range BASED ONLY ON HIS FL.

I certainly won't argue with you about the shifting trajectory of growth in femur length. Although it is interesting that the study you posted said that only 28% of the fetuses' FL's deviated by 2 or more quartiles by the end of gestation, (which is what Conner's FL would have had to have done considering he would have had to have gone from approx. the 42nd-ish percentile at 20 weeks to the 95th-ish percentile at 33 weeks) this is precisely why Dr. Jeanty used measurements of multiple bones to calculate Conner's age at his death. But like you I also contacted an OB-GYN who specializes in this kind of thing (in fact he wrote books with Dr. Jeanty) and I asked him if you could calculate a fetus' percentile based on only the FL (which is what Devore said you could do) and he answered and said no - and actually gave me the equation to calculate it (the equation included multiple measurements including abdominal circumference).

But the bottom line is the shifting trajectory of growth in femur length is not the same thing as a fetal growth curve or a fetal growth percentile. No one here - and certainly not Dr. Jeanty - is arguing that Conner's age can be calculated by his femur length.

Devore said there was nothing to indicate that Conner would have been growing slower or faster at 33 weeks than he was at 20 weeks - and that is true. Fetuses follow growth curves. You've got small babies that grow around the 5th percentile - average babies that grow around the 50th percentile and large babies that grow around the 95th - and others in between. But they don't jump around from the 42nd percentile to the 95th percentile. When you show me some literature or some longitudinal study that says that that is possible - because that's what would have had to have happened here - and some literature that backs up what you are saying about how the EDC calculated by the LMP is still considered to be possibly 7 days off when the first trimester ultrasound confirms it within a day then you'll make me question the information that I have gathered from dozens and dozens of medical books and articles and what Dr. Jeanty is saying.

It's really easy to start comparing apples to oranges with this type of subject.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:20 pm

Just a small correction to my previous post. Only 28% of the 87% of the fetuses that deviated by two or more quartiles. Which would mean only 24% of the total fetuses deviated by two or more quartiles.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:13 pm

lsmith510 wrote:Just a small correction to my previous post. Only 28% of the 87% of the fetuses that deviated by two or more quartiles. Which would mean only 24% of the total fetuses deviated by two or more quartiles.


I would have to look at the numbers again, I think if you ven it out correctly it worked out to a very high percentage of fetus's that were outside the trajectory I believe as high as 60%. But we do agree that there is a change in velocity in some percentage of babies.

My source for this new information is Dr. Jeanty, who was gracious to answer my questions. It was his information that led to the 2 week window even with early tracking. I'll post the info tomorrow.


Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby JackIsBack » Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:12 am

lsmith510 wrote:could a fetus growing in the 50th percentile for the majority of it's pregnancy have a growth spurt at 33 weeks that would cause his percentile to jump to the 99th percentile?


That's the problem here - the variation. You can push the natural variation all the way to last percentile before there was a need to actually change the EDC date, and then you only changed that date if it was greater then one week. Only if both these scenario were met would you adjust Conner's age at the time of death. That's just crazy, by

Thats's crazy - the change in percentile would simply become a huge fudge factor. You must make the assumption that Conner remained in the same (or nearly the same) percentile during his entire life, all other variations would have to effect what you're actually trying to answer - his time of death. Otherwise you'd be just calcualting what you think the answer should be (TOD: December 23-24) and applying all other variations to the the change in Conner's percentile size.

This case is full of people taking the answers they wanted and working backwards and fitting it to the evidence. What we needed was people (detectives) to actually follow the evidence no matter where it lead. The police showed up on December 24th... decided that Scott did it within the first hour and ignored anything and everything that suggested anything different. They told Dr. Devore the answer they were looking for and asked him to fit it with the evidence instead of giving him the evidence and asking him to give them the answer (unknown by him). They told Trimble's handler where they wanted him to go and to everyone surprise - he went to that exact spot (Dog's can sense what their handlers want). They told Karen Servas that her timeline doesn't really work - and bingo, she changed her timeline. They allowed the Medina Burglaries to change their stories, even when those stories were so improbable and senseless to be virtually impossible... they simply stamped the story as the truth and moved along. They ignored evidence that didn't fit - they didn't bother even collecting it or following up on it (the pawned watch, the Servas receipt time, the Tom Harshman sighting - to name a few). They produced evidence and testified to evidence that never existed - it was a product of their made up story (the anchors, Laci in the toolbox, the pliers that cut the chickenwire). The truth is that they had NO evidence at all that pointed to Scott - in fact they had more than enough to exclude Scott if they only followed up on it properly.
JackIsBack
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:22 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:33 am

anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:Just a small correction to my previous post. Only 28% of the 87% of the fetuses that deviated by two or more quartiles. Which would mean only 24% of the total fetuses deviated by two or more quartiles.


I would have to look at the numbers again, I think if you ven it out correctly it worked out to a very high percentage of fetus's that were outside the trajectory I believe as high as 60%. But we do agree that there is a change in velocity in some percentage of babies.

My source for this new information is Dr. Jeanty, who was gracious to answer my questions. It was his information that led to the 2 week window even with early tracking. I'll post the info tomorrow.


Anon


I look forward to hearing what he had to say. I'm hoping you'll post his actual words - as it is easy to misinterpret this type of information.

I actually looked at the study you posted - I downloaded the entire study. I'm not sure we are really comparing apples to apples here but the findings seem to bolster what I have been saying all along. Info from your study:

"We expressed variance as standard deviation (SD)2 and as a CV (SD/mean X 100). "
"Mean FL increased 25-fold (from 2.9 to 74.66mm) from 10 to 41 weeks of gestation, whereas SD increased only about threefold from 1 to 2.7 mm, so the CV decreased from 36% to 3.6% as gestation advanced".

Here is the graph from results of your study:

Femur Longitudinal Study.JPG


If I am understanding this correctly - the CV and standard deviation represent the variance/difference between the percentile of the FL measurement at that time compared to the end (42 weeks). Note how small CV and standard deviation are between 20 and 35 weeks. If you look back at my posts about this subject you will see that I have always said that the first trimester is for dating a pregnancy - because the great majority of normal fetuses grow at the same rate during this time. Therefore - as this study supports - when comparing to percentile at 42 weeks - you would expect the greatest amount of variances at 10 weeks or in the first trimester. It is at 20 weeks that hereditary factors "kick in". This is where a baby who is going to be a big baby is going to start growing faster than the average baby and a baby who is going to be a small baby is going to start growing slower than the average baby. This is why at Conner's 20 week ultrasound - they notated a POSSIBLE later due date - because Conner was growing a little slower than average - meaning he was just below the 50th percentile in his growth. Note that in the graph at 20 weeks and after - the CV is much smaller. This supports our position that from 20 weeks on growth percentile is fairly consistent.

Here is your earlier post about your conversation with Dr. Jeanty:

I had an email conversation with OBGYN expert and he outright stated that in late gestation, (regardless of original early scans), the best accuracy level in gestational age is within the 2 weeks range. Very informative conversation, the expert also agreed that 60% of women do not know, or get their LMP wrong, and if it were possible conception date would be the most accurate starting point for any pregnancy dating. The expert also accepted the idea of Gestational growth Velocity changes and in fact had worked on a similar study, which had similar results.

So just an update to some of the concepts I had brought up in recent posts.

Anon


Just to be clear - Dr. Jeanty was not attempting to date Laci's pregnancy based on those bone measurements. He dated her pregnancy based on her LMP because the first trimester ultrasound confirmed it. He then assumed Conner was growing at a constant rate and calculated how many days it would take for his bones to grow to their observed lengths......and used that information along with Conner's KNOWN gestational age to come up with the dates. As Jane pointed out - Laci didn't fall into the 60% of women who get their Last Menstrual Period wrong. Laci and Scott had been trying to have a baby for a year and a half. And again - her first trimester ultrasound confirms that. I have never suggested that calculations of gestational age based on measurements taken in the 3rd trimester should trump earlier calculations based on earlier scans.

Again - I hope you'll post both your questions to him as well as his answers.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:38 pm

lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:Just a small correction to my previous post. Only 28% of the 87% of the fetuses that deviated by two or more quartiles. Which would mean only 24% of the total fetuses deviated by two or more quartiles.


I would have to look at the numbers again, I think if you ven it out correctly it worked out to a very high percentage of fetus's that were outside the trajectory I believe as high as 60%. But we do agree that there is a change in velocity in some percentage of babies.

My source for this new information is Dr. Jeanty, who was gracious to answer my questions. It was his information that led to the 2 week window even with early tracking. I'll post the info tomorrow.


Anon


I look forward to hearing what he had to say. I'm hoping you'll post his actual words - as it is easy to misinterpret this type of information.

I actually looked at the study you posted - I downloaded the entire study. I'm not sure we are really comparing apples to apples here but the findings seem to bolster what I have been saying all along. Info from your study:

"We expressed variance as standard deviation (SD)2 and as a CV (SD/mean X 100). "
"Mean FL increased 25-fold (from 2.9 to 74.66mm) from 10 to 41 weeks of gestation, whereas SD increased only about threefold from 1 to 2.7 mm, so the CV decreased from 36% to 3.6% as gestation advanced".

Here is the graph from results of your study:

Femur Longitudinal Study.JPG


If I am understanding this correctly - the CV and standard deviation represent the variance/difference between the percentile of the FL measurement at that time compared to the end (42 weeks). Note how small CV and standard deviation are between 20 and 35 weeks. If you look back at my posts about this subject you will see that I have always said that the first trimester is for dating a pregnancy - because the great majority of normal fetuses grow at the same rate during this time. Therefore - as this study supports - when comparing to percentile at 42 weeks - you would expect the greatest amount of variances at 10 weeks or in the first trimester. It is at 20 weeks that hereditary factors "kick in". This is where a baby who is going to be a big baby is going to start growing faster than the average baby and a baby who is going to be a small baby is going to start growing slower than the average baby. This is why at Conner's 20 week ultrasound - they notated a POSSIBLE later due date - because Conner was growing a little slower than average - meaning he was just below the 50th percentile in his growth. Note that in the graph at 20 weeks and after - the CV is much smaller. This supports our position that from 20 weeks on growth percentile is fairly consistent.

Here is your earlier post about your conversation with Dr. Jeanty:

I had an email conversation with OBGYN expert and he outright stated that in late gestation, (regardless of original early scans), the best accuracy level in gestational age is within the 2 weeks range. Very informative conversation, the expert also agreed that 60% of women do not know, or get their LMP wrong, and if it were possible conception date would be the most accurate starting point for any pregnancy dating. The expert also accepted the idea of Gestational growth Velocity changes and in fact had worked on a similar study, which had similar results.

So just an update to some of the concepts I had brought up in recent posts.

Anon


Just to be clear - Dr. Jeanty was not attempting to date Laci's pregnancy based on those bone measurements. He dated her pregnancy based on her LMP because the first trimester ultrasound confirmed it. He then assumed Conner was growing at a constant rate and calculated how many days it would take for his bones to grow to their observed lengths......and used that information along with Conner's KNOWN gestational age to come up with the dates. As Jane pointed out - Laci didn't fall into the 60% of women who get their Last Menstrual Period wrong. Laci and Scott had been trying to have a baby for a year and a half. And again - her first trimester ultrasound confirms that. I have never suggested that calculations of gestational age based on measurements taken in the 3rd trimester should trump earlier calculations based on earlier scans.

Again - I hope you'll post both your questions to him as well as his answers.


I will pull the email and post when I'm able to tonight. Just to be clear I'm not saying the study is gospel. Jeanty also knows I am a lay-person so he may dumbbed things down a little or generalized It was an attempt to illustrate that there was and still remains in this case a variance that could possibly explain any gestational age difference. The germane dates being December 224th to early January. So if Dr. Jeanty states that in late pregnancy that there is a 2 week variance, I would tend to believe that. If he is correct in this statement, it is not definitive proof of anything, but does go towards bolstering my own opinion that the science in general is not accurate to the level prescribed in this case. Please remember that my discussion with Jane was contextually about the ability to get to a week and a specific day in terms of accuracy. And to be more direct, I'm not even sure what variances and velocity changes are relevant to Connor and to what degree. I'm no expert in any of this, just trying to find truth and the further I dig the more unclear the some issue become.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:37 pm

JackIsBack wrote:All these numbers....WOW! I agree, the problem with relying on the age of Connor is that the answers will also give you a wide range of variances and therefore a wide range of ages.

We also don't need to prove who did it... we just need to prove that Scott couldn't do it - and I think that's very easy.

For Scott to be guilty... he would of had to put a pregnant Laci in the Bay during his boating (fishing) trip... so if we can prove that Laci was alive after Scott left for his warehouse on Christmas Eve, and/or prove that Conner was handled outside of Laci's body - then Scott must be excluded as a suspect.

So here are my questions:

1) How did that twine get around Conner's neck? It was too small of an opening to simple allow for Conner's neck (and arm) to slip inside. It was also too complicated of a knot (a knot with a bow tied on top) to be randomly created by nature. There was human intervention here = Scott is innocent.

2) How did Conner's body get over the debris line (by 2 to 3 feet) to the place it was discovered. There was some intervention here too - even so, this alone doesn't prove Scott is innocent - just another source of evidence.

3) The bodies were way too preserved to be placed in the bay for well over 100 days - this is just not possible or even probable - there was some source of preservation going on here that's not natural.

4) What about all the eye witness that saw Laci walking after Scott left. What about the Tom Harshman tip?

5) How did Mckenzie get put in the back yard and why didn't the Mail delivery person notice. (the Dog always barked at him when she was in the backyard). The whole time thing of placing the dog in the back yard by the neighbour is just wrong... Karen's initial estimation on the time would be far more accurate then relying on a cash receipt from a temporary cash register that was often unplugged and only used during holiday sales events and not calibrated. There is a little thing that we just went through called "Day Light Savings" - that can explain a 1 hour variation in the set time on the register fairly easily. The police screwed up here by not checking the cash register's time immediately. When the defence checked over a year later - the time was wrong by a whole day (I think 23 hours).


Scott is innocent ... I know that... it's time this Injustice gets overturned.


Good to see that you're back, Jack! As we've known for years, Scott is Innocent!
jane
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:52 pm

Here is a cut and paste of the email exchange, the only changes are to protect Identity. I did not go to the original email asking of the questions as they are quoted in the response. Keep in mind my answer from earlier today as to the concept of precision, you will see responses before questions as this is how the email chain reads. Nothing really earth shattering for guilt or innocence - Kind of cool that he would take the time to answer.


ok well you have hard questions. let me answer below

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 12:13 PM, XXXXXXXX@XXX wrote:

No issue, I'm just seeking knowledge, just some points of clarification.

Thanks

XXXXXXXXX

On Mar 18, 2017, at 11:59 AM, Philippe Jeanty <pjeanty@XXX.XXX> wrote:

> HI XXXXXXXXXXXX i was in a very long trip
> why all the questions ? is there a legal issue ?

>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 4:11 PM, XXXXXXXXXXXX@XXX wrote:
>
> DR. Jeanty;
>
> I know you are one of the foremost experts in your field, and I hope you are not to busy to answer a few questions?
>
> I have been doing some minor research into Fetal Growth, and there seems to be quite a lot of conflicting information out there, that I hope you can comment on?
>
> I recently read an Norwegian study (2010) on Fetal Growth Velocity that conducted research on around 600 cases to determine if the fetus grows at a continual rate. In the study it was noted that in only 18% of the cases, the fetus stayed withing the standard deviation and by EDC, and only 38% of fetus's were within 2 deviations of the initial projected growth range at EDC. The findings of the study concluded that fetal growth changes velocity at times during gestation (slows down at times and speeds up). I was wondering, with your wealth of experience, what you thought of this study, if the Idea of Gestational Velocity not being fixed.


I dont know that paper, but i agree. Actually we had a paper on "saltatory" fetal growth. actually why should a baby always grow at the same rate... when the environment is more favorable (mom eating well and resting well) babies grow faster. Overall of course growth slows as babies grow. Now predicting individual growth is very complicated and not succesful up to now, but noticing slowing down below normal percentile is important for management

>
> The other Issue I am trying to understand is just how accurate Gestational Age is as a science. I look at the standard charts for fetal growth and there seems to be a great deal of variation in the precentiles from 5% to 50% to 95%. In some cases the variance itself is larger than 2-3 weeks growth. Look at the charts I find it hard to understand how one can arrive at such pinpoint results, like knowing the exact week and or day.


the dating is more precise in the first trimester that is when the week and day are suggested, typically within 5 days accuracy. in the second trimester it drops to a week and in the 3rd it may be off easily by 2 weeks

>
> So in correlating the two concepts of Fetal Growth Variance and Fetal Growth Velocity, I'm left confused about to the level of granular precision we hold Gestational Age sciences that are based on Long-bone and soft tissue measurements. Are the ages almost always estimates within a know standard deviation or are they as precise to express a given week and day as a result?

no, results are rarely precise, otherwise there would only be one standard. Long bones are best as growth restriction affect long bones less. skinny kids are not usually shorter. Soft tissue on the other hand are very much affected by growth restriction and use as an indicator for it.
This is why there is not just a scientific part but also an art in estimating babies at risk. there are also other parameter that are more functional such as doppler measurements


>
> The last thing I was hoping you could help me understand is the the clinical distinction between LMP and date of conception.

lmp is the first day of last menstrual period, a convenient date that some women remember. it is typically 2 weeks before conception

> I have read that ovulation does not always happen on the 14th day of the cycle, and in fact can happen anytime in the 11 day window with only 4 days for actual conception to take place.


correct, not all woman have 28 day cycle and fertilization may not be on the day of ovulation, but a difference is a difference only if it makes a difference

> In a perfect scenario it would seem that the conception date would be a far more accurate starting point than LMP for Gestational age Vectors, given the patience penchant for not tracking dates cloesly and the variability of the ovulation/conception window. Can you speak to LMP and Ovulation and its effect on Gestational age?


huh ?

>
> I appreciate that you are an expert and appreciate your time to even ponder these questions, if you are able to respond that would be great, If not I understand you are busy helping those in need.
>
> Warment Regards
>
> XXXXX

Continued in Reply after re-stating the question:

The problem is that about 40%of women don't know their lmp, thus the need for the other

On Mar 18, 2017 4:46 PM, XXXXXXXXX@XXX wrote:

Thanks so much for answering these, much appreciated! The last question was just about the best measurement, would it be better to know the LMP and guess at the date or is the goal really to get as close to the conception date as possible


Anonshy
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:38 am

Thanks for sharing your exchange with Dr. Jeanty, Anon. I too think it's cool that he took the time to respond.

I don't disagree with anything he said, nor do I think anything he said in his email contradicts his conclusions from the habeas. It's true that if you were to do an ultrasound on a woman in her 3rd trimester and attempted to estimate gestational age without any other information - the best you could is a two week range. But in Laci's specific case there was MUCH more information - therefore I do believe it can be narrowed down. Not to mention Dr. Jeanty made it clear in the habeas he was not calculating Conner's gestational age based on his bone measurements at death. He was using all of the information - calculation of gestational age based on LMP and the first trimester ultrasound - and Conner's growth percentile at his 20 week ultrasound to calculate how long it would have taken for his bones to reach those lengths. I also think it's important to reiterate that the study you provided showed how little deviation in growth percentile there was from 20 weeks on.

I do appreciate you contacting him and looking for information. And hey - we've made process - you acknowledged in your other post that I am not Jane! :)
lsmith510
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:36 am

lsmith510 wrote:Thanks for sharing your exchange with Dr. Jeanty, Anon. I too think it's cool that he took the time to respond.

I don't disagree with anything he said, nor do I think anything he said in his email contradicts his conclusions from the habeas. It's true that if you were to do an ultrasound on a woman in her 3rd trimester and attempted to estimate gestational age without any other information - the best you could is a two week range. But in Laci's specific case there was MUCH more information - therefore I do believe it can be narrowed down. Not to mention Dr. Jeanty made it clear in the habeas he was not calculating Conner's gestational age based on his bone measurements at death. He was using all of the information - calculation of gestational age based on LMP and the first trimester ultrasound - and Conner's growth percentile at his 20 week ultrasound to calculate how long it would have taken for his bones to reach those lengths. I also think it's important to reiterate that the study you provided showed how little deviation in growth percentile there was from 20 weeks on.

I do appreciate you contacting him and looking for information. And hey - we've made process - you acknowledged in your other post that I am not Jane! :)


I think sometimes you / Jane take me the wrong way. I really don't have an agenda other than finding out the truth. I'm sometimes brash and push-back, but it is all in the spirit of keeping things real and getting to the bottom of issues. I hope I push you to look at things closely or to seek out information to counter. I know for me, I started posting here after AK was sort of done, and in the beginning I only had my 10 year old uninformed views to rely on, you guys called me on some things and you got me to look deeper. I hope my challenging your opinions either helps to change or bolster your opinions.

As for your take on Jeanty, I interpret it a little different. He does not put any precursor on the 2 week variance in terms of initial scans and how things have progressed. I think the 2 weeks is real even inside this case given a few of the supporting concepts and comments. When he talks about each way-point and the amount of variance he does it as an running total and I think this is by design. The Idea of changing velocity is something Jeanty seems to understand and agree to. It is obvious he is talking from a position (not knowing what my intimations where) of problematic gestational issues so this skews his comments to low and problematic growth. The "It's not a problem unless its a problem" is also a concept that is important, as doctors mostly act on the exceptions and don't look at things too closely unless their is an issue, So between 5 and 95 percentiles, they just let things progress - this is why the concept of Connor always being at the 50th Precenti'e does not really sit well with me. The Idea that growth slows at the end of Gestation is also an interesting point, and probably what leads to the large variance, it certainly bears out in the charts. I also took notice of his answer to the precision question, he was forthright to point out that there is no one standard, and that the whole science of Gestational age is often wrong (Paraphrasing from memory). I would like to believe that with these answers plus everything else we know in this case, that there is a degree of variance and it is up to the individual to decide what or how much variance applies to Connor. For me, until I hear other evidence that precludes Connor from having died on Dec 24th, I will not rule it out based on Gestational Age as the possibility has not been eliminated,logic will not allow me to do so.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby JackIsBack » Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:05 am

jane wrote:Good to see that you're back, Jack! As we've known for years, Scott is Innocent!


Thanks Jane... I wasn't really gone, just reading all the post and not posting myself.

This is a very difficult subject to wrap ones head around...I'm going to give it shot, and I'm going to refer to a study done by my local University. Link: http://ucalgary.ca/fenton

Image

According to the charts (and app) ... for a baby boy to grow from the 50th percentile to the 95th percentile at the 33rd week of pregnancy would be equivalent to 2.5 to 3 weeks of natural growth. Therefore we can remove up to 3 weeks off the time of death of Conner and still fit his size within the standard gestational growth charts for a baby boy.

This is what I mean... they can fudge away 3 weeks in adjusting the percentile up from 50th to 95th without adjusting the age... and therefore you'll never ever get a consensus on the time of death. My next point is... show me in any real world study where the percentile change of a fetus varies by more then 10 percentile points in either direction without some abnormal situation occurring with the mother or child - I don't think anyone can, it just doesn't happen.

So we must assume that whatever percentile Conner was at during his last exams (42nd or 50th were stated) was the percentile he'd be at the time of his death - and calculate that date accordingly. I'm far from an expert... but statistically, that's the only thing that makes sense. At this point... it's just junk science.
JackIsBack
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:22 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:38 am

anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:Thanks for sharing your exchange with Dr. Jeanty, Anon. I too think it's cool that he took the time to respond.

I don't disagree with anything he said, nor do I think anything he said in his email contradicts his conclusions from the habeas. It's true that if you were to do an ultrasound on a woman in her 3rd trimester and attempted to estimate gestational age without any other information - the best you could is a two week range. But in Laci's specific case there was MUCH more information - therefore I do believe it can be narrowed down. Not to mention Dr. Jeanty made it clear in the habeas he was not calculating Conner's gestational age based on his bone measurements at death. He was using all of the information - calculation of gestational age based on LMP and the first trimester ultrasound - and Conner's growth percentile at his 20 week ultrasound to calculate how long it would have taken for his bones to reach those lengths. I also think it's important to reiterate that the study you provided showed how little deviation in growth percentile there was from 20 weeks on.

I do appreciate you contacting him and looking for information. And hey - we've made process - you acknowledged in your other post that I am not Jane! :)


I think sometimes you / Jane take me the wrong way. I really don't have an agenda other than finding out the truth. I'm sometimes brash and push-back, but it is all in the spirit of keeping things real and getting to the bottom of issues. I hope I push you to look at things closely or to seek out information to counter. I know for me, I started posting here after AK was sort of done, and in the beginning I only had my 10 year old uninformed views to rely on, you guys called me on some things and you got me to look deeper. I hope my challenging your opinions either helps to change or bolster your opinions.

As for your take on Jeanty, I interpret it a little different. He does not put any precursor on the 2 week variance in terms of initial scans and how things have progressed. I think the 2 weeks is real even inside this case given a few of the supporting concepts and comments. When he talks about each way-point and the amount of variance he does it as an running total and I think this is by design. The Idea of changing velocity is something Jeanty seems to understand and agree to. It is obvious he is talking from a position (not knowing what my intimations where) of problematic gestational issues so this skews his comments to low and problematic growth. The "It's not a problem unless its a problem" is also a concept that is important, as doctors mostly act on the exceptions and don't look at things too closely unless their is an issue, So between 5 and 95 percentiles, they just let things progress - this is why the concept of Connor always being at the 50th Precenti'e does not really sit well with me. The Idea that growth slows at the end of Gestation is also an interesting point, and probably what leads to the large variance, it certainly bears out in the charts. I also took notice of his answer to the precision question, he was forthright to point out that there is no one standard, and that the whole science of Gestational age is often wrong (Paraphrasing from memory). I would like to believe that with these answers plus everything else we know in this case, that there is a degree of variance and it is up to the individual to decide what or how much variance applies to Connor. For me, until I hear other evidence that precludes Connor from having died on Dec 24th, I will not rule it out based on Gestational Age as the possibility has not been eliminated,logic will not allow me to do so.

Anon


Discussion is always good - and it's always good to be challenged.

If Scott gets another trial, it certainly will be interesting to hear Dr. Jeanty's testimony.

You AND Jane - not "you / Jane" ;)

Perhaps we should talk about adipocere...and whether or not there are any other possible ways for it to have formed....for instance what if Laci were in more shallow water - but she was wrapped in plastic?
lsmith510
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:54 am

lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:Thanks for sharing your exchange with Dr. Jeanty, Anon. I too think it's cool that he took the time to respond.

I don't disagree with anything he said, nor do I think anything he said in his email contradicts his conclusions from the habeas. It's true that if you were to do an ultrasound on a woman in her 3rd trimester and attempted to estimate gestational age without any other information - the best you could is a two week range. But in Laci's specific case there was MUCH more information - therefore I do believe it can be narrowed down. Not to mention Dr. Jeanty made it clear in the habeas he was not calculating Conner's gestational age based on his bone measurements at death. He was using all of the information - calculation of gestational age based on LMP and the first trimester ultrasound - and Conner's growth percentile at his 20 week ultrasound to calculate how long it would have taken for his bones to reach those lengths. I also think it's important to reiterate that the study you provided showed how little deviation in growth percentile there was from 20 weeks on.

I do appreciate you contacting him and looking for information. And hey - we've made process - you acknowledged in your other post that I am not Jane! :)


I think sometimes you / Jane take me the wrong way. I really don't have an agenda other than finding out the truth. I'm sometimes brash and push-back, but it is all in the spirit of keeping things real and getting to the bottom of issues. I hope I push you to look at things closely or to seek out information to counter. I know for me, I started posting here after AK was sort of done, and in the beginning I only had my 10 year old uninformed views to rely on, you guys called me on some things and you got me to look deeper. I hope my challenging your opinions either helps to change or bolster your opinions.

As for your take on Jeanty, I interpret it a little different. He does not put any precursor on the 2 week variance in terms of initial scans and how things have progressed. I think the 2 weeks is real even inside this case given a few of the supporting concepts and comments. When he talks about each way-point and the amount of variance he does it as an running total and I think this is by design. The Idea of changing velocity is something Jeanty seems to understand and agree to. It is obvious he is talking from a position (not knowing what my intimations where) of problematic gestational issues so this skews his comments to low and problematic growth. The "It's not a problem unless its a problem" is also a concept that is important, as doctors mostly act on the exceptions and don't look at things too closely unless their is an issue, So between 5 and 95 percentiles, they just let things progress - this is why the concept of Connor always being at the 50th Precenti'e does not really sit well with me. The Idea that growth slows at the end of Gestation is also an interesting point, and probably what leads to the large variance, it certainly bears out in the charts. I also took notice of his answer to the precision question, he was forthright to point out that there is no one standard, and that the whole science of Gestational age is often wrong (Paraphrasing from memory). I would like to believe that with these answers plus everything else we know in this case, that there is a degree of variance and it is up to the individual to decide what or how much variance applies to Connor. For me, until I hear other evidence that precludes Connor from having died on Dec 24th, I will not rule it out based on Gestational Age as the possibility has not been eliminated,logic will not allow me to do so.

Anon


Discussion is always good - and it's always good to be challenged.

If Scott gets another trial, it certainly will be interesting to hear Dr. Jeanty's testimony.

You AND Jane - not "you / Jane" ;)

Perhaps we should talk about adipocere...and whether or not there are any other possible ways for it to have formed....for instance what if Laci were in more shallow water - but she was wrapped in plastic?


First thought is how to account for the lack of oxygen at the surface (Tape and plastic degrade) and still be subject to water/Moisture, Second is the increased air temperature. My overall feel is that Laci would have degraded in a much different manner under this option, trapped static AIR, Increased temperatures. Even without the addition of possible sunlight, the air temperature, even in Winter/Early fall may not have allowed the chemical process to take place. Its odd, trying to figure out how she could be airtight in plastic enough so to keep O2 out and still let water in, with the possible fromation of mineral deposits. Now admittedly, the amount of adipocere on Laci was minimal, there was not much surface material left. Its an interesting idea, but would need to know how to create the conditions? Cold water submersion, Minimal O2 and possibility of Mineral deposits

Anon

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:20 pm

anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:
lsmith510 wrote:Thanks for sharing your exchange with Dr. Jeanty, Anon. I too think it's cool that he took the time to respond.

I don't disagree with anything he said, nor do I think anything he said in his email contradicts his conclusions from the habeas. It's true that if you were to do an ultrasound on a woman in her 3rd trimester and attempted to estimate gestational age without any other information - the best you could is a two week range. But in Laci's specific case there was MUCH more information - therefore I do believe it can be narrowed down. Not to mention Dr. Jeanty made it clear in the habeas he was not calculating Conner's gestational age based on his bone measurements at death. He was using all of the information - calculation of gestational age based on LMP and the first trimester ultrasound - and Conner's growth percentile at his 20 week ultrasound to calculate how long it would have taken for his bones to reach those lengths. I also think it's important to reiterate that the study you provided showed how little deviation in growth percentile there was from 20 weeks on.

I do appreciate you contacting him and looking for information. And hey - we've made process - you acknowledged in your other post that I am not Jane! :)


I think sometimes you / Jane take me the wrong way. I really don't have an agenda other than finding out the truth. I'm sometimes brash and push-back, but it is all in the spirit of keeping things real and getting to the bottom of issues. I hope I push you to look at things closely or to seek out information to counter. I know for me, I started posting here after AK was sort of done, and in the beginning I only had my 10 year old uninformed views to rely on, you guys called me on some things and you got me to look deeper. I hope my challenging your opinions either helps to change or bolster your opinions.

As for your take on Jeanty, I interpret it a little different. He does not put any precursor on the 2 week variance in terms of initial scans and how things have progressed. I think the 2 weeks is real even inside this case given a few of the supporting concepts and comments. When he talks about each way-point and the amount of variance he does it as an running total and I think this is by design. The Idea of changing velocity is something Jeanty seems to understand and agree to. It is obvious he is talking from a position (not knowing what my intimations where) of problematic gestational issues so this skews his comments to low and problematic growth. The "It's not a problem unless its a problem" is also a concept that is important, as doctors mostly act on the exceptions and don't look at things too closely unless their is an issue, So between 5 and 95 percentiles, they just let things progress - this is why the concept of Connor always being at the 50th Precenti'e does not really sit well with me. The Idea that growth slows at the end of Gestation is also an interesting point, and probably what leads to the large variance, it certainly bears out in the charts. I also took notice of his answer to the precision question, he was forthright to point out that there is no one standard, and that the whole science of Gestational age is often wrong (Paraphrasing from memory). I would like to believe that with these answers plus everything else we know in this case, that there is a degree of variance and it is up to the individual to decide what or how much variance applies to Connor. For me, until I hear other evidence that precludes Connor from having died on Dec 24th, I will not rule it out based on Gestational Age as the possibility has not been eliminated,logic will not allow me to do so.

Anon


Discussion is always good - and it's always good to be challenged.

If Scott gets another trial, it certainly will be interesting to hear Dr. Jeanty's testimony.

You AND Jane - not "you / Jane" ;)

Perhaps we should talk about adipocere...and whether or not there are any other possible ways for it to have formed....for instance what if Laci were in more shallow water - but she was wrapped in plastic?


First thought is how to account for the lack of oxygen at the surface (Tape and plastic degrade) and still be subject to water/Moisture, Second is the increased air temperature. My overall feel is that Laci would have degraded in a much different manner under this option, trapped static AIR, Increased temperatures. Even without the addition of possible sunlight, the air temperature, even in Winter/Early fall may not have allowed the chemical process to take place. Its odd, trying to figure out how she could be airtight in plastic enough so to keep O2 out and still let water in, with the possible fromation of mineral deposits. Now admittedly, the amount of adipocere on Laci was minimal, there was not much surface material left. Its an interesting idea, but would need to know how to create the conditions? Cold water submersion, Minimal O2 and possibility of Mineral deposits

Anon

Anon


A quote from an article about the formation of human adipocere:

"We know certain factors that seem to be important in triggering that transformation," Ubelaker said. These include an oxygen-free environment, the presence of certain bacteria and body fat, warm temperature, a mildly alkaline environment and moisture, either in the environment or from the body itself. While formation can take time, some research indicates that it can begin within a few days after death in the right environment.


http://www.livescience.com/14472-waxy-corpse-adipocere-decomposition-investigation.html

Admittedly I have a lot to learn about adipocere. This is not an aspect of the case that I have researched until now.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:06 pm

Forgive me if I'm wrong, was of the belief that cold water aided in the process and that heat was disruptive.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Mar 30, 2017 5:21 am

JackIsBack wrote:
jane wrote:Good to see that you're back, Jack! As we've known for years, Scott is Innocent!


Thanks Jane... I wasn't really gone, just reading all the post and not posting myself.

This is a very difficult subject to wrap ones head around...I'm going to give it shot, and I'm going to refer to a study done by my local University. Link: http://ucalgary.ca/fenton

Image

According to the charts (and app) ... for a baby boy to grow from the 50th percentile to the 95th percentile at the 33rd week of pregnancy would be equivalent to 2.5 to 3 weeks of natural growth. Therefore we can remove up to 3 weeks off the time of death of Conner and still fit his size within the standard gestational growth charts for a baby boy.

This is what I mean... they can fudge away 3 weeks in adjusting the percentile up from 50th to 95th without adjusting the age... and therefore you'll never ever get a consensus on the time of death. My next point is... show me in any real world study where the percentile change of a fetus varies by more then 10 percentile points in either direction without some abnormal situation occurring with the mother or child - I don't think anyone can, it just doesn't happen.

So we must assume that whatever percentile Conner was at during his last exams (42nd or 50th were stated) was the percentile he'd be at the time of his death - and calculate that date accordingly. I'm far from an expert... but statistically, that's the only thing that makes sense. At this point... it's just junk science.


Exactly!! (Parts bolded by me)
jane
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Mar 30, 2017 5:51 am

Retiring Peterson attorney won’t see conclusion of blockbuster case
MARCH 24, 2017 2:00 PM
By Garth Stapley
gstapley@modbee.com

A key Scott Peterson attorney will leave his legal team before the California Supreme Court rules on the Modesto man’s death sentence appeals.

“I’m retiring,” said Lawrence Gibbs, 65, who recently filed a motion to withdraw from representing Peterson. Another attorney will take Gibbs’ place, he said, and Peterson’s defense team will stay the course………

As with all death row defendants, Scott Peterson’s legal requests have proceeded on two tracks. The first is called a direct appeal, and the second, a habeas corpus review, or simply “habeas.”

The direct appeal is based on what happened at trial and largely focuses on the judge’s rulings, including which evidence to leave in or out and which jurors to keep or excuse, and it asks for a new trial. Attorney Cliff Gardner filed this appeal in 2012; the state Attorney General’s office, representing prosecutors, responded in 2015, and Gardner replied for Peterson the same year. Both sides await scheduling of oral arguments before the Supreme Court.

Gibbs, meanwhile, was working on Peterson’s habeas petition, another type of appeal seeking a defendant’s release. A habeas request can feature new evidence, evidence that should have been presented at trial, or errors by defense counsel…….

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/news/local/crime/ ... rylink=cpy
jane
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:03 am

http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/video/d ... 3038787940

In a new two-hour special, Dateline takes a comprehensive look at the infamous case of Laci Peterson, after reporting on it for more than a decade. Newly unearthed interrogation video of Scott Peterson and an interview with retired Modesto Police Detective Allen Brocchini are featured. Keith Morrison reports Friday April 21 at 9/8c.
jane
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:28 am

There are a couple of new posts on the Peterson family's facebook page about the Dateline special which will be shown tonight at 9pm ET:

https://www.facebook.com/ScottPetersonAppeal/

Dateline is airing a piece on Scott’s case (Friday, April 21). We did decline to be interviewed for the special, but we’ll be following along on Twitter when it airs on the west coast. Follow @SPAppeal or @JaneyPeterson2 on Twitter to join the conversation.

#Dateline is saying they have a "newly unearthed interrogation video" of Scott. When our family read this, we thought maybe the prosecutors had just found a tape in a desk drawer; a tape that the defense or the jury had never seen. Don't be fooled, the video is not new. It played in court during his trial.

The tape is from the night Laci went missing. At the point this one hour taped interview started, Scott had been with various officers for almost 6 hours straight. He had answered every question they asked and he'd given them full access to his house, his vehicles, his warehouse and his boat.

He'd gone through the events of the day multiple times with multiple officers…

*There’s a short clip from the video on the facebook page.
jane
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby erasmus44 » Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:04 pm

jane wrote:There are a couple of new posts on the Peterson family's facebook page about the Dateline special which will be shown tonight at 9pm ET:

https://www.facebook.com/ScottPetersonAppeal/

Dateline is airing a piece on Scott’s case (Friday, April 21). We did decline to be interviewed for the special, but we’ll be following along on Twitter when it airs on the west coast. Follow @SPAppeal or @JaneyPeterson2 on Twitter to join the conversation.

#Dateline is saying they have a "newly unearthed interrogation video" of Scott. When our family read this, we thought maybe the prosecutors had just found a tape in a desk drawer; a tape that the defense or the jury had never seen. Don't be fooled, the video is not new. It played in court during his trial.

The tape is from the night Laci went missing. At the point this one hour taped interview started, Scott had been with various officers for almost 6 hours straight. He had answered every question they asked and he'd given them full access to his house, his vehicles, his warehouse and his boat.

He'd gone through the events of the day multiple times with multiple officers…


I will try to watch it. I think that this case comes down to two things - 1. the credibility of the sightings of Laci at various times after Scott would have left as well as dog evidence suggesting she was still alive after he left, and 2. the evidence with respect to the fetus.
On the second issue, I will never learn enough to be able to outthink the experts on this issue so I would very much lean on the expert consensus or the opinions of the most respected and knowledgeable among the experts - this is the approach I took to the DNA evidence in the Knox case. I am not sure where this comes out in the Peterson case but I have seen various things which lead me to think that it may lean toward innocence. There are some other issues relating to the cadavers which may also tilt toward innocence.
I am less affected by what a suspect says after an intensive interrogation unless he reveals something that he could know only if he was guilty. Even then, there is the danger that the police fed him the info.

*There’s a short clip from the video on the facebook page.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 2940
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:09 pm

Here's the link to the transcript for the full Brocchini interview with Scott which took place on December 25, 2002 from 12:01a.m. until 1:00 a.m.:

http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Exhibits/P-68.htm
jane
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Apr 22, 2017 7:06 am

The Dateline special was disappointingly superficial and one-sided. No mention whatsoever of the issues raised in the appeals. Complete adulation for Laci's family and friends, the police detectives, the prosecutors, and Amber Frey.

Richard Cole, the ex-journalist who has always been very supportive of Scott's innocence was given less that five minutes to make a few points near the end of the show, and then the scene immediately turned to the trial and the death sentence and the cheering crowds.

Evidently, Keith Morrison has never been interested in the truth about this case:

http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/reporte ... ow-n748941
jane
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Introspectre » Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:30 pm

Well, I finally got to see a little bit of the video interview. I have been wanting to see the entire video and even though it is in evidence MN never posted the video on her website. She only posted the transcript.
Introspectre
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:46 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sun Apr 23, 2017 4:30 pm

Introspectre wrote:Well, I finally got to see a little bit of the video interview. I have been wanting to see the entire video and even though it is in evidence MN never posted the video on her website. She only posted the transcript.


Marlene would have been more than happy to post the video on her website. However, it was not included in the information she had access to.

I'm surprised that you don't have access to it.
jane
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Previous

Return to Possible Wrongful Convictions: Member Submissions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests