Friday, July 4, 2008

Who moved the bodies, and Why?

We know that Conner did not wash ashore, and his body was placed on the Richmond Jetty shortly before he was found. The evidence is non-conclusive regarding Laci: she may have been placed in the Hoffman Bay on the night of the 12th/13th, or she may have been placed exactly where she was found during the early morning hours of the 14th.

These facts cause us to ponder some disturbing questions:

Why were they put on the Richmond Jetty and Point Isabel?

To incriminate Scott Peterson. He was clearly the only suspect. His fishing trip was well-publicized. Who didn't know that Scott Peterson went fishing at the Berkeley Marina on December 24? The Bay searches from late December through early April were well-publicized, and we knew they were searching in the Berkeley Marina, along the fishing route, and also in the Richmond Turning Basin (Chevron shipping channel). False reports had been given of bodies found. It didn't take a genius to know that finding the bodies in that area, anywhere in that area, would automatically incriminate Scott Peterson. Whomever planted the bodies there didn't need any specialized training or information -- anywhere along the shoreline from the Turning Basin to Berkeley Marina would have worked.

Why take the risk of moving the bodies?

It seems a foregone conclusion that whomever abducted Laci and murdered her and Conner was getting away with it -- Scott Peterson was the only suspect, and other leads had been summarily dismissed by the MPD with little or no investigation. So, why take the risk? Why not leave well enough alone?

Suppose the bodies were at risk of being discovered, and that discovery would force the MPD to look at other suspects. Suppose the bodies could be linked to one of the Laci-sightings the MPD ignored.

Suppose the bodies were actually found somewhere else, at a location linked to one of the Laci-sightings the MPD ignored.

Who moved the bodies?

Who had the most to lose if the bodies were found elsewhere? Who had the most to gain if the bodies were found at the Richmond Jetty and Point Isabel?


Anonymous said...

Marlene, has there ever been any forensic studies done on how the bodies were preserved before they were found? Clearly Laci's body was attacked by some sealife and Conner seemed to have been stored in some sort of container since it didn't get damaged.

Marlene Newell said...

Why do you say her body was attacked by some sea life? She was pretty much a skeleton on her upper body, but it wasn't from sealife feeding -- there were no bite marks or torn flesh. I don't think sealife eats a body that way. She did have barnacles on her clothing, but only a few, and none on her body. Barnacles live in the intertidal area where she was found.

Justice4thevictims said...

Don't you think the "container" Conner was preserved in was his mother's own body......and where is the prrof that Conner was placed in the spot he was found and did not wash up? You said "we KNOW that Conner did not wash ashore". I followed this case very closely and never saw proof of that presented at trial.

Marlene Newell said...

You are playing into the myth that because evidence wasn't presented at trial that it doesn't exist.

What you did see at trial was the only evidence that was presented to "prove" that Conner and Laci washed ashore from Scott's fishing route was Dr. Cheng's Progressive Vector Diagram, which was built on incorrect data, had Conner washing ashore when the water level was way too low for anything to get over those rocks, and could not produce a trajectory for Laci.

What you also saw at trial was Det. Cloward and Det. Hendee describing the very thorough bay searches both before and after the bodies were found, using the most sophisticated equipment and most experienced divers, and they could not produce a single piece of evidence that Scott dumped Laci in that Bay.

What you also saw at trial was eye witness after eye witness to Laci being alive after Scott left for the warehouse being totally ignored by the MPD because it didn't fit their theory.

Justice4thevictims said...

Fact is, the jurors heard the evidence and decided.....where was proof of all you say at trial, where it mattered?

Justice4thevictims said...

I don't know if I would call evidence not presentted a trial a MYTH!! When was it supposed to be presented, if not at trial?

Justice4thevictims said...

When was this evidence supposed to be presented, if not at trial??

Marlene Newell said...

Yes, the exonerating evidence should have been presented at trial. Some of it was, but was ignored by the Jury.

But the fact that much of it wasn't presented doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I agree, we respect the decisions of juries, but that does not mean that an innocent person is not within his or her full legal and moral right to continue efforts to prove innocence. That's what the appeals process is all about. If got it 100% right 100% of the time, there would be no need for an appeals process at all.

But we sometimes get it wrong. And it takes a great deal of effort on the part of many people to correct a wrongful conviction.

Justice4thevictims said...

Well, the jury had to go with what made sense IMO.....I don't believe they "ignored" anything at all.....if Garegos knew something else as truth, I'd think he'd have said so at trial.

And I agree, a person can pursue his notion of justice forever.....he has every right. But until such time as his conviction is proven wrong, he is a condemned murderer, regardless of the opinions of anyone else that did not sit through every second of the trial as the jurors did.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe the jury "ignored" anything....I believe they looked at what was presented to them and based their decision of that evidence and common sense. If what you say if true and there is definitive proof that it didn't happen the way the prosecution presented'd think that would be be known this many YEARS later and Scott would be a fre man.

Marlene Newell said...

You have a very inadequate understanding of what it takes to overturn a wrongful conviction. It isn't sufficient to discover new evidence, or establish that evidence existed but wasn't presented at trial. You have to present that evidence or that argument to an appellate court.

Scott hasn't had a single appeal heard yet. So your argument that if this evidence existed Scott would already be a free man is void of reality.

If your comments are being ignored, it's because they are not fit to be published.

Anonymous said...

I guess I misunderstood your comments--you say we KNOW Conner's body did not wash ashore.....and you talk about "Scott's "factual innocence"......I understand the appeals process. But you are commenting as if the proof of Scott's innocence is so clear and indisputable that his being imprisoned is unfair. Plenty of wrongfully convicted people are released when the evidence points to their total innocence....I don't see that happening in this case.

I am Justice4thevictims.....tired of battling the Google account sign am posting as anonymous....J4ti

Anonymous said...

I am still wondering what proof was presented at trial that Conner did not wash ashore, but that his body was put there? You state it as fact when I don't believe there is any proof of that at all. It makes total sense that he was safe inside Laci's body for all those weeks and was expelled....then they both washed ashore. If Laci had washed ashore a couple of says sooner, Conner would no doubt still have been in her womb. What PROOF was ever presented at trial to the contrary?

Marlene Newell said...

We know because of the research we have done. If you will take the time to read the PWC-SII home page, and then follow the links, you will understand why we feel so certain. Also, go to the Research & Analysis page and read all of our analyses and editorials.

Much of the evidence we offer was not presented at trial.

Anonymous said...

Well, at trial is the only place it really matters, I guess.