Thursday, July 3, 2008

The Location and Position of Laci's Body

On the morning of April 14, 2003, Alena Gonzalez, her sister, and her father were walking their dogs at the Point Isabel dog park. Two of their dogs broke away from them and found something down among the riprap. Alena at first thought it was a dead animal, then discovered it was a human body. The human body was later determined by DNA to be Laci Peterson.

Since Conner did not wash ashore, we know that Scott Peterson did not put a pregnant Laci into the Bay on December 24, 2002. How, then, did Laci get to where she was found? It stretches the imagination too much to believe that Laci just happened to wash ashore on the day after Conner's body was placed on the Richmond Jetty. The logical conclusion is that the two bodies were found on subsequent days because they both were placed to be found.

With Conner, we know that he was placed in the exact location he was found. With Laci, that wasn't necessarily the case. She could have been put into the water at Point Isabel, and allowed to wash ashore. It wouldn't matter where she washed ashore, as anywhere in that general area would incriminate Scott Peterson because of his fishing trip on December 24. The other possibility is that she, too, was placed exactly where she was found.

Evidence collected to date fails to prove conclusively which scenario happened. However, the more likely scenario is that Laci was put into the Hoffman Channel during ebb tide the night of April 12/13, expecting that she would wash ashore nearby. When her body didn't surface with the high tide on the morning of the 13th, Conner was placed on the Jetty so he would be found in a way that would not risk his body also being lost. Then, unexpectedly, Laci did wash ashore on the morning of the 14th.



Anonymous said...

According to trial testimony and based on the decision of the jury---Conner DID wash ashore as did Laci. You KNOW Conner was placed in the exact location he was found?? You KNOW?? This theory was brough forth at trial, that Conner's body was stored somewhere.....obviously there was no supporting evidence to make that theory fly

Marlene Newell said...

We are getting pretty tired of comments to our research consisting of nothing more than "well that wasn't presented at trial."

Duh! We know most of it was not presented at trial. But unless you can show how our research is wrong, or our conclusions incorrect, we aren't interested in seeing your comments.

Anonymous said...

That seems a rather biased comment---not interested in comments that disagree with yours. What matters is what the jury heard, if there is such absolutel prrof that Scott was wrongfully convicted, I would think he would be a free man.....others have been released immediately upon having exonerating evidence presented.

Marlene Newell said...

You didn't say you disagreed with our research. You merely recited the very tiring and unreasonable mantra that this evidence wasn't presented at trial.

People are exonerated when new evidence is presented in an appeal. Scott has not yet had a single appeal heard. Sometimes the exoneration doesn't come till a second trial is heard, and an acquittal secured. That is sometimes a very long process.

In the meantime, we are presenting our analyses to the public. If you disagree, fine, and we do publish comments in good taste that simply voice disagreement.

If you want to challenge our research or our conclusions, fine, but provide the evidence that proves us wrong.

But comments that just repeat ad nauseum that this evidence wasn't presented at trial therefore it must not exist, or must not be reliable, will not be published.

Anonymous said...

Well, only evidence presented at trial...and not the independent research of bloggers is all that matters. Other theories WERE presented at trial...many very similar to your opinions.....they made no sense to the jury...and that is all that matters.

I don't believe that if these opinions were proven to be true that Scott wouldnt be a free man NOW.

My comments would never be in anything but good taste...I wouldnt never lower myself to anything else......

I think the evidence that proves your theories and opinions wrong WAS already heard at trial...IMO


Marlene Newell said...

You are mistaken, JFTV. None of the evidence that we've posted on the Conner did not wash ashore or on this page was presented at trial.

The water levels were not even identified, much less any pictures of what they would look like.

Geragos did suggest that Conner was placed, but he provided no evidence that it was impossible for him to have washed ashore, simply because he didn't research and obtain the evidence.

If Conner did not wash ashore, then Scott did not place a pregnant Laci in the Bay on December 23-24. Since he had no opportunity to do so afterward, it is all that is necessary to prove his factual innocence.

If you still claim that this evidence was presented at trial, please provide excerpts from the trial testimonies. They are all available on pwc-sii. From the home page, Click Case File, and then Click Transcripts.

Anonymous said...

I don't see how anyone ELSE had the opportunity to place bodies in the bay makes perfect sense (and was what the jurors believed when it was presented at trial) that Conner was protected inside his mothers's body until her body deteriorated to the point that it could no longer contain him.....he then washed ashore, followed by Laci.

I know you don't like hearing the "presented at trial" remark but that is what counts. Remember Mark Garegos claiming Scott ws "stone cold innocent" and he was going to prove it? Well, the defense had ample opportunity and could not dispel the evidence presented to the jury, circumstantial or not.

Have searched for a real time chat (blog) on this case......but I guess there isn't the interest there once was.......J4TV

Marlene Newell said...

Someone had plenty of opportunity to place the bodies. Point Isabel is accessible 24/7 with vehicle parking very close to the Hoffman channel. I included pictures on the webpage. I also included pictures of the incline that is sloped and which would make it much easier to bring a body down, just like they brought it up. The place is deserted at night, so plenty of opportunity.

The Jetty is accessible by the public, but not used very much. I've been there a number of times and at most ran into a party of one person, other times no one in sight the whole time I was there. Conner was a small package which could be discreetly laid down and then walk away.

The argument that no one else had the opportunity is just plain wrong.

Anonymous said...

Well, IMO anyone that tried it--the way theat area was watched and the notoriety of it after Laci went missing would have to be pretty stupid..I don't buy the "Scott was framed " theory one bit..we could go back and forth all day Bottom line, the jury has spoken and if your theories are ever proven maybe one day Scott will be a free man. I do not foresee that ever happening but nothing is impossible.

I am, like I said before, going in search of a real time chat .....too frustrating this way.....good luck J4TV

Marlene Newell said...

I agree, there is no point going back and forth, but where did you get the notion that area was being watched? Point Isabel was never under surveillance at any time in the search. Nor was the Jetty. they were part of the search in the initial phase of the Bay searches, in that they did search the shoreline in those areas.

But not after that. In fact, they had stopped doing all Bay searches, and those were always done anyway in daytime, and they certainly didn't start out from either Point Isabel or the Jetty, nor would they have come close enough to see anything going on.

Anonymous said...

WHy do you think Scott was researching those same tides/waters?...coincidence???

Marlene Newell said...


Scott researched those waters because that's where he went fishing there.

Coincidence that the bodies were found on the Jetty and Point Isabel? Does our webpage sound like we think it is a coincidence?

Read the page -- we outrightly say the bodies were planted.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

so, laci was placed in the water and "allowed" to wash ashore? so what of connor? were they just hanging on to him? you state he was"placed" when laci didnt wash up the next, what to do with connor if laci DID wash up the next morning?