Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Another sad anniversay

On March 16, 2005, Judge Delucchi sentenced Scott Peterson to death row. On March 17, at 3:10 a.m., Scott was transferred to San Quentin Prison.

This horrific injustice resulted from many mistakes made along the way, the most destructive being the tunnel vision that descended on the Modesto Police Department the first night Laci was missing. That tunnel vision not only corrupted the judgment of the MPD, but also the media and the general public -- Scarce anyone could see anything that pointed in any other direction than Scott Peterson.

This tunnel vision is most apparent by the ridiculous dismissal of the Medina burglars from involvement in Laci's disappearance. The MPD had a neighbor report seeing a van with 3-suspicious looking men and a safe being removed from the Medina home at 11:40 on December 24. Yet, the MPD was all too anxious to remove the burglars as suspects so they could proceed unhampered with their investigation of Scott Peterson.

After the arrest of Todd and Pearce, the Modesto Bee published an extensive article with information about the MPD's dismissal of the burglars as suspects in Laci's disappearance. These quotes are taken from page A-14.

"It was bad luck on their part," Stough said. [Steven Todd] said he was scared that he was going to be associated with Laci's disappearance.

Was he scared about being associated with Laci's disappearance because he was actually involved, or because he figured he would be the scapegoat if the MPD couldn't solve the case? No reason to fear, Mr. Todd - the MPD already had its sights fixed on Scott Peterson.

"Todd told investigators that he traveled the La Loma area often and recognized a home that looked empty the morning after Christmas. He said he and Pearce entered the home about 4 a.m. and stayed for about 3 1/2 hours, Stough said." Stough was the lead detective for the Medina burglary.

The article goes on to say:

Police had not yet sealed off the [Peterson] house as part of their search, and officers had not taken up positions in the neighborhood at that early hour. Todd said he saw several TV news trucks in the area, so he picked a different entry into the home. Police said the burglars carried a large safe out the front door and onto the front lawn. The safe contained $50,000 worth of jewelry and other items, according to police.

Isn't that what Diane Jackson saw -- a safe being removed from the house? But she saw it at 11:40 a.m. the morning of December 24. Todd says that happened on the morning of the 26th. Who do you believe, Jackson or Todd?

And does anyone else find it ridiculous that Todd "picked a different entry into the home" because of the "several TV news trucks in the area," but hauled the safe out the front door and across the front lawn?!?

The article continues:

None of the reporters or crews in those trucks reported seeing or hearing anything suspicious, Stough said. Duh, that's because there wasn't anything suspicious happening on the morning of the 26th for them to see, because the burglary happened on the 24th, just as Diane Jackson reported.

It's not long after the burglars were arrested that the MPD was told of a phone conversation between the Tenbrink brothers, in which Adam Tenbrink said Laci came up on the burglary and Todd verbally threatened her. Yet, the MPD refused to take another look at Todd and Pearce as suspects in Laci's disappearance.

The MPD didn't fixate on Scott Peterson because it had no other suspects; it refused to adequately investigate other suspects because it was already fixated on Scott Peterson.

After the infamous Lizzie Borden's acquittal in 1893, the New York Times reported:

"It will be a certain relief to every right-minded man or woman who has followed the case to learn that the jury at New Bedford has not only acquitted Miss Lizzie Borden of the atrocious crime with which she was charged, but has done so with a promptness that was very significant." The Times added that it considered the verdict "a condemnation of the police authorities of Fall River who secured the indictment and have conducted the trial." Not stopping there, the Times editorialist blasted the "vanity of ignorant and untrained men charged with the detection of crime" in smaller cities--the police in Fall River, the editorial concluded, are "the usual inept and stupid and muddle-headed sort that such towns manage to get for themselves." (Source)

Not all small-town police are inept, stupid, or muddle-headed, but the MPD's dismissal of the Medina burglars as suspects in Laci's disappearance certainly qualifies them for that characterization.

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Per that article it could not have been the 24th because there were no news crews there on that day, so if Todd entered the Medina house when he saw news crews - it had to be another date.

Marlene Newell said...

Nice try, and that would make sense if it weren't so obvious that the cops were cueing Todd and Pearce as they questioned them. The tv news trucks info undoubtedly came from the cops. Of course, Todd and Pearce are not going to say, nope there weren't any tv news trucks there cause that would have admitted they were there on the 24th. Tney're going to say whatever the cops want them to say. It's a criminal's dream come true -- get arrested for the lesser crime, turn in less than half the property and none of the money, get a significantly reduced sentence, and best of all, get away with the bigger crime because the cops already have their sights perma-glued to another suspect.

Bruce said...

so these guys are robbing a house, a woman comes upon them, they kidnap her, in front of the house, or wait, was it down the road where the ex cop saw a woman being forced into a van, whatever, they kidnap the woman, take her somewhere, come back for the loot, then keep the woman alive for several months, wait for her to give birht, then go up north and plant a body so that will take the suspicion off of them? i like the homeless guys killing her and planting her body better than that theory....

Marlene Newell said...

What you describe is not my theory.

Lowflyin' Lolana said...

Nobody ever seems to have a good answer to Dr. Allison Galloway's testimony about the fetal development of the Petersons' son, Conner.

I don't know if it's because they truly don't understand it, but it was your explanation here that made the science clear to me. I am as positive as I can possibly be, from looking at that evidence, that Scott Peterson could not have killed his wife and unborn son. The location of the bodies, the skepticism about the burglars, none of it makes any difference when you consider the age of Conner Peterson. His father could not have been his killer, because that baby did not die on Christmas. I keep waiting for someone to say something to me that makes enough sense to give me doubt about that testimony. It has not happened and I somehow doubt it will. If it could be explained, surely one of the guilties would at least try. But they don't. So I guess they can't.
Burkey

Anonymous said...

Wearing A Halo said...

That is a flat out lie CB. I already explained it, but you, CB, either glossed over it or totally missed it.

HTH

Marlene Newell said...

You are the flat-out liar, WAH. All you've done is repeatedly insist that Devore proved the baby's age. You repeatedly cling to Devore's junk science (first time method used, never published in peer-reviewed professional literature, still not published) in spite of Galloway's exonerating conclusions.

Burkey said...

WAH,

I think you and I don't speak the same language about this. You believe DeVore's methods are credible and I just don't. I don't understand how you can overlook how he manipulated the numbers, and said he relied on Jeanty's theory while at the same time not using Jeanty's methods. This to me is very dishonest.

I couldn't find fault with Galloway's methods, so I do believe her testimony, along with Laci's doctor's testimony and the charts indicating Conner was 32 weeks old.

I also think if Peterson had done the crime, he would have slipped up somewhere and there would be something, some physical evidence. So many millions were spent on the investigation, and to come up with no physical evidence whatsoever seems really odd to me. But Peterson also seems to have stumbled so badly when it came to dealing with his indiscretions (the fling with Frey) that I just can't see him covering up a murder successfully.

Adultery, guilty; sure. But murder, no. I just don't see it.

Anonymous said...

Wearing A Halo said...

CB, I know that you do not see it, but I do see it clearly...crystal!!! I also agree with anthropoligist Dr. Alison Galloway and her measurements of Conner--her testimony is very informative--including her expert explanation as to why Conner's dead body was a bit larger than his actual size and why Dr. Brian Peterson's measurements are not actual--thus the 32 cm CRL is not so actual and Conner would had been closer to 30 cm CRL.

CB, PWC would lead you to believe that the Prosecution did not like Dr. Alison Galloway's interpretation of Conner's gestational age and thus asked Dr. Greggory Devore to debunk Dr. Alison Galloway--nothing is further from the truth, so much so that PWC is fallacious. Dr. Greggory Devore was asked to measure the femur bone to ascertain what fetal age would the femur bone actually be--33 or 35 or 38 weeks gestational age. It turns out that Conner's femur bone is actually in the 33 weeks gestational age, which is what Dr. Alison Galloway stated with her measurement's protocal from the study she relied upon as 33 weeks thru 38 weeks.

CB, on 12/23/02, Conner was 33 weeks gestational age, not 32 weeks as the defense (Dr. March) and PWC would want you to believe. Dr. Yip utilized a study that when he measured Conner moved up his GA by six days (not 7 days; one week) and in doing so moved the EDC to Feb. 16, 2003 from Feb. 10, 2003--Conner's actual Gestational Age did not change at all whatsoever.

Furthermore, Dr. March agreed with Dr. Greggory Devore's method and calculations and this is very important. What Dr. March wanted to convey was that he did not agree with Dr. Greggory Devore's interpretation because Dr. March wanted to move Laci's conception date one week later and thus making Conner 32 weeks GA on 12/23/02 and then stating that the earliest Conner would have died was 12/29/02.

Interestingly enough, Conner was medically 33 weeks gestational age when he was found and not the "full term baby" he APPEARED to be.


HTH

Marlene Newell said...

WAH, can you please excerpt Galloway's testimony to support this statement?

including her expert explanation as to why Conner's dead body was a bit larger than his actual size and why Dr. Brian Peterson's measurements are not actual--thus the 32 cm CRL is not so actual and Conner would had been closer to 30 cm CRL.

But, you know what, WAH, you didn't spin the baby's size down small enough -- a 30 cm baby still doesn't fit into a 23 cm uterus.

You forgot to fabricate testimony from Galloway that expertly explains that Peterson's measurement of the uterus isn't an actual measurement because the uterus was actually bigger than it was.

Anonymous said...

Wearing A Halo said...

Actually MAN, Dr. Brian Peterson testified that the uterus was friable and crumbling at the openning from where Conner expelled. IMO, the uterus was degenerating, and its size was smaller than its original size when Conner was inside and by the time that Dr. Brian Peterson measured the uterus, it was less than a complete uterus.

HTH

Marlene Newell said...

WAH, please quote Peterson's testimony where he says that the uterus was less than a complete uterus and smaller than its original size when the baby was inside. TIA.

The truth is, Peterson made it clear that the fundus of the uterus was present, and the opening was below the fundus. The fundus was included in the measurement. Do you know what the fundus is, WAH? Apparently you do not, because if you did, you would know that the uterus was a complete uterus.

Perhaps you should get a good resource, like The Practice of Obstetrics by J. Clifton Edgar, and study up a bit on the uterus. Google the title, and then download the book -- it's in PDF form.

And please quote Galloway's testimony where she says that the baby was larger than he really was. TIA.

Anonymous said...

Wearing A Halo said...

MAN, perhaps you should read the trial transcripts and make sure you comprehend them. The trial transcripts are available at the PWC-SII site and click on the links the lead you, MAN, to the testimony of Dr. Brian Peterson and Dr. Alison Galloway. Please read them and if you, MAN, still cannot find the info you ask for, I will post the testimony.

HTH

Marlene Newell said...

Please do post the testimony that states what you said it states. After all, you are the one who claims that PWC is putting out false information -- so prove it. Here's your chance WAH, prove what you say is true by quoting from the transcripts. You constantly accuse me of putting incorrect information on SII and this blog -- well prove it by quoting from the testimony.

Please post the part where Peterson said the uterus was incomplete. And the part where Galloway gave it as her expert opinion that the baby wasn't as big as he was.

TIA.

Anonymous said...

Wearing A Halo said...

MAN, you obviously did not even understand my original post which was a reply to CB. Re-read it...I stated that, IMO, the uterus was incomplete and I based this on Dr. Brian Peterson's testimony that the top of Laci's uterus was open and frayed and friable. Read Dr. Alison Galloway's testimony and you will find the answer you seek--READ IT!!!

HTH

lsmith510 said...

Wow - lol - WAH, WAH, WAH - your interpretation of the testimony is certainly creative.

Perhaps YOU should go back and read the testimony again - on second thought - don't bother - as we have been over this and over this and you still don't get it.

In addition to Marlene's request ("Please post the part where Peterson said the uterus was incomplete. And the part where Galloway gave it as her expert opinion that the baby wasn't as big as he was."), please also post the testimony of Dr. March where he agrees with Devore's methods and calculations. I believe you are confusing his agreement with JEANTY'S methods with an agreement with Devore's method.....not the same thing. In fact I believe March called Devore's method "non-science" - no wait - he called it "less than non-science"....I wonder if that's another way of calling it JUNK science? I bet it is!

Marlene Newell said...

I understand perfectly, WAH -- you are trying desperately to twist and turn their testimonies to make them say anything except what they say. The burden is on you to quote the portions of testimony that support your argument, so those reading this blog can judge for themselves whether you are right or wrong. But you can't do that, because it's not in there. You repeatedly claim that I have misunderstood the testimony, but you do not produce a single sentence of testimony to prove I am wrong.

But I will write another article about it, WAH -- look for it within a few days. Hopefully this will teach you, WAH, that truth is my goal, not spinning the testimony to fit a pre-conceived theory.

Anonymous said...

Wearing A Halo said...

ROFLMAO!

Lsmith510, I never said that Dr. Brian Peterson said "incomplete", I said, IMO, "incomplete". Do follow Lsmith510!!!

As for you MAN, I purposely do not post certain trial testimony not because it is not there, but because you, MAN, and anyone else has a brain, two eyes and reading skills to find out for themselves--it is that easy MAN!!!

HTH

Marlene Newell said...

silly, silly WAH -- why would you opine that the uterus was incomplete when Peterson made it clear that it was intact and complete?

And we all know why you don't post testimony to support your opinions -- because there is none. Why don't you try forming some opinions based on truth, instead of your incurable need to validate your erroneous pre-judgment against Scott? Or do you have some other "vital interest" at stake?

Anonymous said...

Wearing A Halo said...

MAN, what do you mean by, "it was complete"? TIA

Also MAN, what ""vital interest" at stake" do I have? TIA

lsmith510 said...

As usual WAH - it is YOU having a hard time following. I was quoting Marlene's request to you regarding the "incomplete" uterus. They were not my words.

There goes that nervous laughter of yours again WAH. Whenever you are asked to provide some proof of your nonsensical jabber - you resort to rolling on the floor and insults.

WAH - tell us - why do you choose to ignore the truth? Out with it WAH - why so vested in Scott being guilty?

Marlene Newell said...

Complete, as in not missing the top, as you said it was.

I don't know, WAH, what vital interests do you have?

Anonymous said...

Wearing A Halo said...

LOL MAN, the top of the uterus were the openning was was friable, crumbly and abraded. So MAN, where in Dr. Brian Peterson's testimony did he say the uterus was complete? I know he said the uterus was "intact" as in the uterus was there and not missing, but IMO, the uterus was not complete as in whole.

So MAN, you do not know what "vital interest" I have? I asked you MAN because you brought it up and I thought you would know, but you do not know--it figures MAN, you do not know much about this case at all.

HTH

Marlene Newell said...

dear, dear WAH, you are such an ignoramus. And such a bore. You never quote from the testimonies because the testimonies never support your ridiculous fantasies. If they did, you would be quoting them right and left.

But I will quote some testimony in the upcoming article, which will specifically reply to your posted opinions, just in case some other fool out there is laboring under your grossly misguided influence.

Yes, I do know what your "vital interests" are, but that'll be our little secret. Hugs!

Anonymous said...

Wearing A Halo said...

LOL MAN, since you do know what my "vital interests" are, then you wil have to let me know what they are because I have no secrets, but MAN, you do.

MAN, I look forward to your once-again-nonsense of your article(s).

HTH

Marlene Newell said...

Nonsense, WAH? If my articles are nonsense, why do you read them?

You certainly aren't doing your cause any good by fabricating and altering testimony -- just exposes you to be disinterested in the truth.

Anonymous said...

Wearing A Halo said...

MAN, I did not alter nor fabricate testimony, you MAN are such a dunce--seriously!!! I posted what the testimony was and I posted my opinion of that testimony, but you MAN, cannot read, nor understand--you effectively lack comprehension--no doubt about it!!!

MAN, from the start I read your articles to see if you had any worthwhile substance and as I kept reading, all I could say was, WTF is this woMAN talking about? You, MAN, have no clue, unless your agenda is to get as many people to log onto you blogs, all your work for PWC-SII is useless. I am still waiting for you MAN to help SLP and his plight, but so far you have failed, FAILED MAN!!!

Marlene Newell said...

Wrong again, WAH -- I profit nothing no matter how many people read my blog or read SII -- not one penny.

SII is useless? I've failed? Then why are your pants all in a bunch?

Bye, bye.

P.S. Don't bother responding, as this discussion is over. Nice thing about owning the blog -- I get the last word!