Sunday, January 9, 2011

The State's "trump card" is a Joker

More common sense from Richard Cole, September 27, 2004, as he notes how the State disproves its own theory.
Scott Peterson's prosecutors are expected to play their trump card this week -- an expert who will trace the path of Laci's and Conner's bodies to where the defendant was fishing the day his wife disappeared.

But the prosecution theory -- that the bodies lay anchored underwater until a storm on April 12, 2003 -- appears to contradict their own expert witnesses and consultants.
-- Contra Costa coroner Dr. Brian Peterson -- no relation to Scott -- testified two weeks ago that he had discovered mineralization in Laci's clothes when her body washed ashore April 14.

The stone-like mineral deposits likely formed because the body spent a substantial amount of time exposed to air and sunlight, Dr. Peterson hypothesized.

That conflicts with the prosecution's belief that Laci's body stayed underwater in the spot where it was dropped until the storm dredged it from the San Francisco Bay floor and freed Conner.

And raised questions as to why no one spotted the floating body despite scores of search boats, dive teams,sonar surveys and helicopter flyovers in that area.

-- Both Dr. Peterson and bone expert Dr. Alison Galloway said Laci's head, arms and legs parted from the body as her corpse floated along the bottom of the bay. That is a common occurrence for submerged bodies, the experts said.

But if the body moved along the bay floor, it would not likely be in the spot where it was allegedly dropped more than three months earlier.

-- As the Daily News previously reported, lead Modesto police Detective Craig Grogan consulted San Francisco Medical Examiner Boyd Stephens two weeks before the bodies washed ashore.

Stephens also told Grogan it was not likely the body would have stayed in one place, in part because of currents in the bay. Bodies have moved as much as 5 miles along the bay floor, Stephens said.

The current around Brooks Island where Scott was fishing is a strong 4 knots, Grogan reported -- so strong that divers said it made underwater searches difficult.

-- Stanislaus County prosecutors and Modesto police have never reenacted the placement of Laci's body in the bay.

That may be because Stephens warned police that the 35 pounds of concrete anchors they theorized were used to sink Laci's 153-pound body was not enough to do the job.

The medical examiner said bodies have been found floating with 80 pounds of weight attached.

Stephens' caution was born out during a test performed by Phil and Dan DeVan, who have worked with several media organizations and consultants during the trial.

Phil DeVan showed the Daily News a videotape he made intended to demonstrate Scott could easily lift Laci's body, plus 50 pounds of weight, out of his boat without capsizing.

The DeVans filled two cloth bags with 153 pounds of material and wrapped them in a tarpaulin, as police theorized Scott had done. They then attached two 25-pound concrete weights.

Phil DeVan maneuvered the mock body and weights out of his 12-f00t boat with little difficulty.

But the videotape then showed the "body" bobbing on the top of the water. It never sank, DeVan said.


Bruce Dombrowski said...

"Phil DeVan maneuvered the mock body and weights out of his 12-f00t boat with little difficulty."

doesnt this kind fo kill the theory that scott could not have dumped laci out of the boat without capsizing it?

Marlene Newell said...

yep, and doesn't it kind of kill the State's theory that 4-5 anchors the same size as the anchor in the boat sank her body? Of course, Boyd Stephens told Det Grogan that -- no way that amount of weight would sink Laci's body. But Grogan arrogantly thought he knew more than Stephens who had decades of experience with bodies (human bodies) in the Bay, and so the MPD turned to the joker Dr. Cheng, who had zero experience with bodies (human or any other variety) in the Bay.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

i agree, but had chicken wire to the weight, and any other weights that scott may have attached to the body, and it sinks easily(just my theory) since scott had owned "many" boats throughout his life, he easily could have kept an anchor or two through the years and used them...(i also have owned boats in my life, and i have always kept the anchors to use on the next boat. i feel one can never have enough anchors. (when i go out i always use two anchor lines, makes me feel safer) plus anchors are not cheap lol

Bruce Dombrowski said...

also, i don't think a tarp was used in the end, may have been used to conceal her body, but i don't think it was wrapped around her...too many air pockets can form, causing the floatation that the video showed.

Marlene Newell said...

There you go again -- changing the State's theory. No one believes the State's theory, so Scott's conviction is unconstitutional because the Constitution mandates that the State prove ITS theory. The Constitution doesn't allow substituting alternate theories for the State's.

Chicken wire? Are you serious? At least the DeVans were smart enough not to fall for that ridiculous notion. Tell me, was the body in full length when he wrapped her in the chicken wire? How did he manage no scratches on the boat? And how did the limbs and head disarticulate? Why were there no chicken wire impressions on her remaining body? And, pray tell, how did she get out of the chicken wire?

Final point. The DeVans didn't wrap their dummy in chicken wire, so if you are insisting that their demo rules out that Scott couldn't have dumped her out of his boat, then your point is nullified, because they didn't duplicate what you are arguing.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

read the post Marlene..."my theory" is what i said....just my thoughts.... chicken wire give me a body, a real body, the four weights, and i absolutely would be able to sink it....and the state doesnt even have to prove anything anyway really....look at the state of california vs Charles Manson, the convicted him of killing sharon tate, and he wasnt even there, not one shred of evidence links him to her murder, richard nixon declared him guilty on the front pages of the la times...all he was guilty of is being scary looking, and much like adulterers, that does not mean he killed sharon tate, yet he was sentenced to death. would you advocate the release of that guy???

Marlene Newell said...

"the state doesn't even have to prove anything anyway really" -- well, that says it all, doesn't it. That most certainly depicts your attitude towards this case. Nothing against Scott has to be proven, but everything for Scott has to be nailed down precisely with not the least little room for error. I suggest you read the Constitution.

And to throw in Manson -- you are such a nut case, Bruce. You know what, if you want to contend that Manson was wrongfully convicted, then put up a website and give the reasons why. I have no interest in Manson's innocence or guilt, but I sure as heck would not make any decision based on your opinion, as I see quite clearly that you have no reasoning ability at all.

BTW, are you in love with Manson?

Bruce Dombrowski said...

i said that the state doesnt have to prove anything in relation to what the state did to charlie manson....if they can do that to someone else, why is scott immune? and you have no interest in someone elses wrongful conviction? i thought that is what you stood for? "prevent wrongful convictions"...when you allow it to happen to someone else, and not say anything because, "well, he is a scary guy, and he is probably guilty of soemthing" (i'm not quoting you, just a quote in general) then don't be surprised when it happens to "a really nice guy", like scott. and no, i am notin love with manson, just intrigued how he got convicted of killing a person, and he was not even there, when the DA say a case is a slam dunk guilty, its the same as charlies case, geez, the president declared him guilty during the trial. had george bush declared scott guilty during the trial, you would have gone ballistic. in todays world, there is no constitution, the government does whatever they want to citizens.

Marlene Newell said...

So why do you stand for it by putting your stamp of approval on another wrongful conviction?

Bruce Dombrowski said...

because i believe he did it. yes, totaly circumstantial,but that is what is intriguing about this whole thing, the lack of a smoking gun, so to speak. had he behaved like robert blake, had no girlfriend on the side, at least looked liked he was in mourning, stood on the stage with the family at the vigil, and all the other circumstances, too many to list right now, he might have gotten away with it...he did a heck of a job though forensically, i think he got lucky in some areas. but in the end, i recognize him as the killer of laci. on a postive note, i do enjoy reading all your stuff, your a good writer, and i find your writings enjoyable, even if i disagree. and i'm sorry, but i will challenge your theories when i feel it warrants it. i gotta think that helps you in the long run, how much fun would it be if everyone just said "oh your right marlene" and went away..that's like the old twilight zone where the gangster gets killed and ends up in the casino where he wins all the time, everything just always goes his way, there is no risk, no edge, he wonders why heaven is like this because he is not happy, only to find out he is in hell. anyway, i gotta a big snowstorm ready to smack the heck out of us here and need to prepare, have a great night!! :)

Burkey said...

I didn't realize Charles Manson wasn't there...I did read Helter Skelter (great book) but it was a long long time ago.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

yeah, how about that...and how would you feel about the scott case if the president of the united states was quoted on the front page of the modesto bee that scott was guilty, in big print?

Burkey said...

Well, the AG of California said it in front of the world on the Larry King Show, long before a jury was even seated...did the Pres.make his comment before or after Manson went to trial? I do have a problem with that comment, too, if he said it before.
I think Marlene was ribbing you when she asked if you were in love with Manson because we Peterson supporters get a HUGE amount of flack if we're women, and get accused of being in love with him. Ridicule, such an effective tool to dissuade people from talking... There are actually men who believe in his innocence too, if you check out the P's web site. But anyway, regarding Manson, maybe I'll read the book again. Very interesting.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

The president made his comment during the trial. "Nixon declares Manson guilty" i believe was the headline. And the chief accusers of Manson were he people who did the killing. and they all concurred that he was not there, and did not participate, just that he "told" them to do money to be paid, no drugs to be paid, just "he told us to, and we did" talk about a case with no evidence at all, and they spent a fortune on that trial too....

Burkey said...

That's inexcusable what Nixon did. Like it's even his place to make such a statement. Did you know Manson apparently had a cell phone in prison? Two, is what I heard. Two cell phones. Don't quote me on that though.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

so Burkey, if george bush said the ame thing about scott, during his trial, i'm sure you would scream for a, should charlie manson be released pending a new trial?