Friday, July 29, 2011

Constantly Reaching Absurdity

Poetry lovers will recognize the title of this blog article isn't exactly the one used by Lawrence Ferlinghetti, but in this instance it's to call attention to the absolutely absurd behavior of the prosecutors in the Anthony case -- they intend to file suit to make Casey Anthony pay for the investigation and trial.  You can read about this nonsense here.

In civil suits it's customary for the losing side to have to pay for the court costs of the winning side.  It's that way in part to prevent a good measure of frivolous suits.  Using that long-standing practice, the State of Florida should have to pay for all of Anthony's legal costs, including the experts who had to be consulted.

But instead the prosecutors, who can't admit they simply didn't have a case against Anthony, are trying to punish her in spite of her acquittal.  So they are going to spend more of the State's money hounding that woman.  Isn't that throwing good money after bad?  If they do take it to trial and lose, perhaps the cost of both trials should be taken out of the paychecks of these nincompoops.

50 comments:

LA Curry said...

I have to admit, I was very curious about this as well. The way it was explained to me is that she was found guilty of lying on the 4 counts and the prosecution claims that those lies all cost money that they otherwise would not have spent. It will be interesting to see the state's final accounting for these extra costs incurred because of her lying...if they don't have a factual, solid, and believable accounting, they will lose again.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

had she just called 911 when she killed, er, i mean, when her baby drowned, this all never would have happened...she should pay....and i read where abc paid her legal expenses?

Heather in Texas said...

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~oklogan/photo/hixonfam.htm

Back Row: Left

Looke familiar?

Marlene Newell said...

not to me . . .

tees said...

Marlene, I disagree, in part! I think she should have to pay for the expenses related to her lying to police and all of Texas Equisearches expenses. Had she not lied, these costs would have been avoided. I don't know how they would figure out the difference in court costs but I think she should be responsible for part of it, relating to the "untruths" told by her. That's how I strongly feel!

tees said...

Also, if you disagree with this, id like to hear your reasons why she shouldn't have to pay for at least this part of it. After all, she was convicted for lying-4 counts!

Marlene Newell said...

tees, I didn't follow the case closely enough to know the exact sequence of events, but if I do recall correctly, her parents are the ones who claimed the child was missing. Now, take a moment and assume the allegation that George assisted with the disposal of the body, then he, not Casey, is the one that started a useless investigation.

Furthermore, if you also assume for the moment that it was George's idea not to call 911, then you have George as the primary person responsible for the start of a useless investigation, and at any time, George could have "found" the body or done something else to indicate where the body was. Or just simply come forward with the truth.

So I can't concede that Casey's lies began a useless investigation, or that her lies are the sole reason the investigation took as long as it did. Moreover, I can't concede that Casey even knew where the body was, if her father is the one that disposed of her.

Of course Casey could have told the truth, that her father was involved; but so could have George.

Until the truth is known, no one should be sued for anything.

Moreover, we don't know how efficient the investigation was to begin with. Let's take Scott's case as an example. Just assume the day comes when Todd and Pearce are proven to be responsible for Laci's demise. Should they pay for that entire investigation and Scott's trial? After all, they lied to the police.

No, they should not, because their lies were easy to detect with just a little bit of follow-up -- it's police incompetency that caused them to get away with their lies, and caused the subsequent multi-million dollar and trial and conviction of Scott Peterson.

How do we know that the same hypothetical did not happen in this investigation -- that the police simply did not do a good job investigating the reported disappearance. For all we know, the evidence of what happened was right under their noses and they just ignored it.

To justify the suit, one would have to prove absolute competence in the investigation and that Casey's lies were the SOLE reason for the investigation taking so long and costing so much. And I doubt very much that such can be proven.

It just reeks of sour grapes and public embarrassment that they didn't get the conviction they wanted.

Jane said...

Casey Anthony was found guilty of the 4 misdemeanor charges of lying to police, and she was sentenced to 1 year in prison for each charge and IIRC was given a $1000 fine for each charge. She has been held accountable for these crimes. It would be a very bad precedent to then make her pay for the cost of investigating her lies.

On another note I cannot see how the investigation and prosecution of the Anthony case can be compared to the investigation and prosecution of the Peterson case.

Both involve first degree murder charges and evidence which is almost completely circumstantial. But then the similarity ends. Scott Peterson lied only about his relationship with Amber. In every other regard, he told the truth. Casey Anthony lied about everything; and it's ironic that one of her biggest lies, the one about her father, is being used as justification for what she did to her child.

Marlene Newell said...

We don't know that she lied about the abuse -- and we don't know that she's telling the truth about it. We just don't know.

I did find it very strange that at 7 months pregnent, she and Cindy were just telling George that she was pregnant -- I mean, she lived in the house, George saw her every day, and he had to be told at 7 months that she was pregnant? And if I recall correctly, he testified that he never once asked her who the father was.

I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that at least some of Casey's problems have their roots in the family dynamics.

Jane said...

But why should we even consider the information? The judge said there was absolutely nothing to support this accusation and he did not allow Baez to mention it in closing.

When the Menendez brothers accused their father of sexual and emotional abuse, there were numerous family members, teachers, etc who testified about the very real possibility that this was going on.


Casey Anthony made the accusation against her father only after her Zanny the Nanny story was proven to be total fantasy.

I don't think your information about George and the pregnancy is correct. He and Cindy were separated for a time during Casey's pregnancy IIRC.

The family was not without problems, but they had been able to work through them for years. Parents are not to blame for everything that goes wrong with their children. In this case, it appears that Casey has a undiagnosed psychological problem bordering on sociopathy.

Burkey said...

The Stanislaus County Sheriff's department was sued by Lydia Lopez (and several other women, with whom the dept. settled out of court) for sexual harrassment.

Lopez lost her case and she was ordered last year to pay 31-thousand dollars for court costs.

Check it out here:
http://thehive.modbee.com/node/20467

Burkey said...

But look how much they wanted from Ms. Lopez:

"Stanislaus County wants a former Sheriff's Department clerk who lost a sexual harassment lawsuit to foot the county's bill for the five-week trial.

The county is asking for nearly $783,000 from Lydia Lopez, a Ceres woman who failed to convince jurors in March that she was sexually harassed by a superior and that managers retaliated against her after she reported advances.

Officials want to recoup the money spent defending the county against her accusations, including attorney fees, court costs and hourly fees for expert witnesses. Attorney fees add up to $674,155, and experts paid to testify at the trial cost the county $108,680, said Edward R. Burroughs, assistant county counsel.


Burroughs said it's common for the county to try to recover costs after prevailing against a "meritless" lawsuit. During his re-election bid, Sheriff Adam Christianson said the county's costs must be covered by Lopez."





Read more: http://www.modbee.com/2010/06/21/1220231/stanislaus-county-wants-ex-clerk.html#ixzz1TqOgceVI


....Nice...

Especially considering those other women settled their cases against Mr. Sheriff's crew...

Marlene Newell said...

It was a civil lawsuit, and the county lost in its attempt to require her to pay $665,000 they claimed in legal fees -- that is only awarded if the lawsuit is frivolous.

Heather in Texas said...

You know what I find interesting: Listen to the phone call between Amber and Scott on January 14th 2003. Amber tells Scott that her birthdays have never been good and that her birthday that year (Feb 10th 2003-Conner's due date), would be a day of mourning for a lot of people. You know what Scott's response was? Nothing. Silence.

If he truly had nothing to do with Laci's murder, then he would have said something. Maybe: "No, it won't. We'll find her and Conner." He was silent because he knew that what Amber said was true and that Conner would never be born.

Heather in Texas said...

The picture is of Scott's great-grandfather.

Jane said...

Heather, you should do some more reading.

Some quotes from the Jan 6-8 conversations with Amber for those who say Scott was not trying to find his wife and did not love her.
*********
January 6:
FREY: I said what are you gonna do if she’s found?
PETERSON: I’m gonna find her.
FREY: You’re going to find her?
PETERSON: We’re gonna find her.
FREY: We are going to find her. Who’s we?
PETERSON: All the volunteers we have, all the police, all the family.
>>>>>>>>
PETERSON: I hope we find her and then we can talk about this.
FREY: Really? Now at this point if she’s found and she’s dead, can we still talk about it?
PETERSON: My God, don’t say that
>>>>>>>>
PETERSON: Amber, I’m so sorry that I lied to you. We are doing everything we can to find her.
>>>>>>>>>>
PETERSON: I…I…I don’t under…this situation is incredibly difficult. We need to find her.
>>>>>>>>>>
PETERSON: The most important thing is finding Laci. Well, and the baby.
FREY: And at this point? So what…what…what?
PETERSON: That is the only resolution, you know. It’s the one thing that we’re all looking for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
PETERSON: We’ll find her.
January 7:
PETERSON: ... the focus is so much on the family and the pain, but should be on finding her
>>>>>>>>>
PETERSON: I…I don’t…I don’t know how long…we want to find her as soon as we can
>>>>>>>>>>>
PETERSON: We need to try to find a resolution to this. We need to find her.
January 8:
PETERSON: Amber, my only plan right now is to find Laci.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
PETERSON: I’m gonna keep doing the same thing, I’m gonna keep trying to find Laci.
>>>>>>>>>>
PETERSON: My only mindset, Amber, is to work and do what I can to find Laci.
>>>>>>>>>>>
PETERSON: Well, no, of course it affects me, but not as important as finding Laci. I mean she is the missing person here
>>>>>>>>
PETERSON: They’re having a press conference Friday and I think they’ll have something to say about it then. And I hope it…I hope it leads to finding her.
>>>>>>>>>>
PETERSON: So I hope that leads to a good resolution in finding her and the child.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
PETERSON: I hope it leads to find her.
>>>>>>>>>>
FREY: So did you love Laci and your baby?
PETERSON: I love Laci. I loved Laci, no question. And she doesn’t…
FREY: Yeah, but…go ahead.
PETERSON: She doesn’t deserve to be missing.
>>>>>>>>>>

Heather in Texas said...

I am well aware of that conversation. But when she specifically said that Feb 10th will be a day of mourning, he said nothing. He did not refute that.

Heather in Texas said...

It is also helpful to acutally LISTEN to the recordings, and not simply cutting and pasting from a transcript.

Jane said...

Heather, he didn't owe her an answer for such an unkind remark. Why would Amber say something like that to Scott who was still holding out hope that his wife would be found?

Amber spent a good part of the conversations whining about how terrible this was for her. She did not care at all about what had happened to Laci.

And, by the way, Laci's due date was February 16.

Heather in Texas said...

That was hardly an unkind remark.

I am very familiar with EDC's given by OB's as I have worked in the field for 10 + years. Unless and EDC is > 7 days from the due date, the due date is typically not adjusted. Her original EDC was 02.10.03. The EDC of 02.16.03 was due to US results. US dating is not an exact science and does have a variation of +/- a few days. As methodically as Laci tracked her cycle since she had been trying to get pregnant for over 2 years, I'm sure she knew exactly when she got pregnant.

Marlene Newell said...

I agree, Heather, I believe she knew exactly when she got pregnant, and Sharon Rocha confirmed in her book what that date was, and that date supports the 2-16 due date, not the 2-10.

All due dates have a margin of error -- and the doctors had begun to compute her GA by the 2-16 due date and that's why 32w was recorded on Dec 23 and the GA for November was also according to the 2-16 due date.

Marlene Newell said...

Heather, are you familiar with the 4-corners principle in legal documents? I think it's very applicable when judging conversations:

"If possible a document should be construed based on what lies within its four corners, unless such examination cannot solve an ambiguity in its language."

That principle prevents a sentence or portion of a legal document from being taken out of the context of the whole document.

Heather in Texas said...

Every heard of an EDC calculator?Look at her Med Records. LMP 05.06.2002.
Plug in the numbers for yourself.
http://www.obfocus.com/calculators/duedate.htm

First day of last menstrual: 05/06/2002 .
Date of conception: 05/20/2002 .
Due date: 02/09/2003 .

Heather in Texas said...

I'm not talking about a document or taking a quote out of context, I'm talking about physically listening to a conversation.

Marlene Newell said...

And Jane countered that you have to consider the entire document, not just a single question/answer.

Yes, they used a calculator based on last menstrual cycle, and Laci also took a pregnancy test. She also had 2 ultrasounds.

But more to the point, if you go by the fist EDC, then you have to consider Conner a smaller than average baby, because that's what the 2nd ultrasound shows -- either younger than thought, or smaller than average.

If you go that route, then you have to take the upper end of Galloway's age estimate, which puts Conner at 36-38 weeks.

You can't mix and match evidence.

Burkey said...

Personally, I give more weight to what Laci's doctors had to say about her due date than anything that's been said since by anyone. That's because those doctors had no need to doctor that date or say it was this or that. They were the ones taking care of her, interpreting the ultrasounds, and it's also very clear the date she announced her pregnancy to people.

I agree that it was an unkind remark, one of many unkind and judgemental remarks by a woman who had hung out with Peterson some four or five times. And I would guess that Peterson may have thought: that's not her due date, but I just can't go there and argue this with Amber.

That would have been my instinct, as well.

I don't feel sorry for Amber. She was asked not to use that image of Laci on the cover of her book with her and Scott also prominently featured. She chose to use it anyway. She acted like she wanted to avoid the media, but then got tempted when Connie Chung came calling. Mrs. R. said please don't do that, and at least Frey listened that time.

There's no way with law enforcement friends who had DOJ roommates, that Frey didn't know about Peterson's marriage after her best friend told her about it. There's just no way. The whole business of her asking her friend to photograph the two of them at a party, that doesn't sit right either. And so---supposedly she liked him, right, and was heartbroken?
So if she likes him so much, and wants to be around him, with the trust that implies, why is she immediately ready to believe he murdered his wife, to the extent that she doesn't even ask him about it before going to police? See, none of these things make sense to me, but this was not a day-to-day Mr.-and-Mrs. kind of relationship. Like he did have with Laci, with whom he spent the marjority of his recreational time.

Heather in Texas said...

Marlene/Jane/Nadia:

According to research, the first ultrasound done at 10 weeks will give a physician the due date which should carry throughout the pregnancy. Any ultrasound done later should not change the due date. As the pregnancy progresses, the dating of the pregnancy becomes less and less accurate. There may be a week or more difference in the second trimester with normal growth.

Laci's fundal height at her last visit was 33 cm which would correspond with her correct gestational age. According to her medical records, she had a pregnancy weight gain of 34 pounds which is on the high side. That can also account for a larger baby.

Dr. Galloway testified that based on the average measurements of Conner's bones, she estimated his gestational age between 35 weeks and 36 weeks. However, she adjusted it by a margin of error of +/-2 weeks giving a range of 33 weeks to 38 weeks.

Marlene Newell said...

Heather, I'm glad you are following this blog, but personally I think you have blinders on regarding this subject. I'm not surprised -- it's one of those few subjects that's a real deal-breaker for Scott's conviction.

Heather in Texas said...

I could say the same for you but I didn't.

Burkey said...

Heather--you didn't? It sounds to me like you did, plus, you didn't address the fact that Laci's doctors revised her due date, and they were the ones examining her.

Nothing personal, but I think that's important and I was curious to see why you don't (apparently) agree.

Burkey said...

Heather--you didn't? It sounds to me like you did, plus, you didn't address the fact that Laci's doctors revised her due date, and they were the ones examining her.

Nothing personal, but I think that's important and I was curious to see why you don't (apparently) agree.

Burkey said...

I don't have tourettes or happy fingers or anything, the captcha said I didn't put in the right word so I did it again..go figure..my own blog won't let me post comments to it most of the time...so please excuse the double post.

Heather in Texas said...

Marlene/Jane/Nadia/Burkey.

No matter what, you will defend SP. You think he's innoncent and I think otherwise. Nothing is perfect. No trial is perfect. No investigation is perfect. But the overwhelming evidence is that he killed his wife and son. There are too many things that Scott did that weren't coincidences.

Marlene Newell said...

Come, come, Heather. You accuse me of defending Scott Peterson no matter what?!? You don't have a clue what I am about. So don't give me that patronizing, rolling of the eyes, you will defend Scott Peterson no matter what!

That's what everyone resorts to when they are losing the discussion - oh, you will defend Scott no matter what!

Sorry, Heather, that always exposes someone who feels the pressure of losing the discussion.

This isn't about Scott Peterson -- it's about what is happening in our judicial system where people are convicted in the media and without substantial evidence directly linked to the crime. It may be enough to satisfy you when it applies to someone else, but I'm sure you would want a much higher standard if you ever found yourself in a situation where someone close to you disappears and your life is put under the microscope and people are making judgments about you based on fallacious media reports.

Don't be foolish enough to think that in an investigation there aren't things in your life that you would be hard-pressed to explain to a police department that's already made up its collective mind that you are fully responsible and to a media that is interested in nothing but ratings, the truth be damned.

Heather in Texas said...

It's not about winning or losing an argument. Or being patroninzing. You have your opinion and I have mine. I may not agree with it but that's the beauty of it.

There are things with the investigation where there are conclusions the police came to that I don't agree with. But when I look at the evidence in total, this is what I see.

The justice system is not perfect nor will it ever be. At least we live in a country where we have the ability to even have a trial. He could have been in a country where he could would already have been sentenced and been excuted.

Isn't there one instance where you look at this case and wonder how you would have responded? How it probably widely varies from Scott's response?

I'll give you mine:

Last year, I had been at work all day and did some Christmas shopping on the way home. I hadn't talked to my husband all day and came home to a completely dark house. No sign of him, no note, nothing. I completely freaked out, running through the house calling for him, checking every closet, room, even the attic. I ran outside to ask my neighbor if he had seen him; which he had not. Got in my car (full of my groceries and presents) and drove around the neighborhood. I finally found him a few streets over helping one of our friends. I was a complete mess trying to find him.

What did I NOT do? Continue with what I was doing and THEN worry about where my husband was.

As I read the things Scott did, they way he responded or his lack of response, it all starts to add up. I honestly can't think of anything that I would be hard pressed to explain to a police department. My life is pretty normal and uneventful.

Marlene Newell said...

My response is too long for a comment, so I will have to post it as an article.

Marlene Newell said...

Sorry, Heather, but IMO your reaction is over the top. If I came home and the house was dark and my husband was gone, I wouldn't freak out unless:

1) he was senile and never allowed out of the house alone, at which time I definitely would freak out

2) he was a child molester under house arrest and never allowed to leave the house alone, at which time I definitely would freak out.

3) I knew he had a girlfriend -- but what they heck, I'd probably just throw his clothes out on the front lawn and lock the door so he couldn't get back in.

Heather in Texas said...

Marlene,

So examples 1,2,and 3 are not correct. Perhaps I do worry about my hubby a little more because he is on Chemo and could have been really sick.

You still didn't answer my question:

"Isn't there one instance where you look at this case and wonder how you would have responded? How it probably widely varies from Scott's response?"

Marlene Newell said...

It would have been helpful had you given the chemo information the first time -- I hope he's doing okay.

No, Heather, I don't concern myself with things like that because they are not at all reliable indicators of innocence or guilt. People can be very innocent looking and guilty as hell, and vice versa. I look for evidence that links the person to the crime.

Behavior may be a cause for looking at someone very closely, of being suspicious, but that suspicion has to produce supporting evidence, and in Scott's case, it did not.

They suspected he killed her in the bedroom, even on the bed -- but could find no supporting evidence. They had to resort to, well he got lucky and didn't leave any evidence. Yea, right, on multiple crime scenes. It used to be that absence of evidence in a thorough investigation indicated innocence -- but not any more, it just means that they must have done it by some unknown miraculous means or some kind of magical trickery. He just made it appear like he killed her on the bed when he really killed her on the sofa -- that sort of illogical reasoning. He just made it look like he transported her in the truck when he really transported her some as yet unknown vehicle.

And it goes on and on -- the only evidence that links Scott to this crime is the relationship of the recovery locations to his fishing route, and I've already said why that evidence exonerates Scott -- the very fact that the baby was found where he was found is absolutely exonerating; the very fact that the baby was larger than the uterus would hold is absolutely exonerating; the very fact that the baby was older than Dec 24 is absolutely exonerating. When you can wrap your head around those facts, you can begin to understand why it is not possible for Scott to have put a pregnant Laci in the Bay on 12-24-02 or any other day; nor for that matter for anyone else to have put a pregnant Laci in the Bay on 12-24 or any other day. That's just not what happened. When people start to admit what didn't happen, then perhaps we can start to figure out what did happen.

Marlene Newell said...

To add another response, because the comments are limited in length -- I don't think about what I would have done had I been in similar situations, but I do think about what I hope and pray I wouldn't do.

I hope and pray I would have more loyalty than Scott's friends had -- require much more evidence and not allow myself to be used to spy -- let the police do their own investigations, if they need me to spy, then I hope I would have enough common sense to know there was something very wrong with their case.

I hope and pray I would not turn so easily against a son-in-law or daughter-in-law.

I hope and pray I would never sit silent in a courtroom listening to the State distort the truth about things I personally knew about, such as when Laci took the home pregnancy test, and what her walking habits were.

I hope and pray that I would not allow myself to be used by the police to spy on someone that I dated -- go to them and give them the details of the relationship, yes; Spy, NO. And I hope and pray I would have enough common sense to know that if they needed me to spy, then they had a very weak case, and I was not going to be a party to making something out of nothing.

I hope and pray that I would never secretly support a brother all the while planning to write a book on how he's guilty.

Those are just some of the things I hope and pray that I would never do. I can't say that I would never do them, just that I hope and pray that I wouldn't.

Is there some of Scott's behavior that I strongly disapprove of? Oh yes, to be sure. The affair is inexcusable -- during a pregnancy is particularly insulting. How many times does that have to be said? Should I start every page on SII and every article on this blog with the disclaimer: I strongly disapprove of Scott having an affair, particularly when Laci was pregnant!!!!

In fact, I think we should go back to criminalizing adultery. Oops, I guess we already have.

Heather in Texas said...

Marlene,

I appreciate your answer. I don't equate adultery with murder. You can have one without the other. There are just too many things that cannot be explained away:

He told Amber that he had "lost" his wife and less than 3 weeks later, she goes missing.

He visited the Berkley marina multiple times, using multiple vehicles, and never once stopped to see how the search was going.

He lied to multiple people, including those closest to him, for no apparent reason.

He still managed to find time to go golfing and to his country club while his pregnant wife is missing. He worried about whether he was "pulling an OJ" by going golfing.

If you know anything about pregnacy, uterus size, how fluids shift after death, etc., you know it is possible for her uterus to be smaller. The uterus grows to acommodate the baby, placenta,and amniotic fluid. Once those are no longer in the uterus, it is going to be smaller. Her body had evidence of animal feeding, barnacles, and severe decomposition. Dr. Peterson testified that her uterus was friable and measured less than 2 mm thus making it smaller is size. I have dealt with friable tissue on many occasions.I have dealt with many babies that have friable/gelatinous skin. Unless you have seen it, it's very hard to imagine.

Heather in Texas said...

Dr. Peterson testified that her uterus was friable and measured less than 2 mm thus making it smaller is size. ****Edited to say the thickness of the uterus was less than 2 mm****

Marlene Newell said...

You are so wrong Heather -- none of what you said applies to a uterus that has been dead for 3.5 months. You are talking about a live uterus in a live woman -- and that is not what happened in the State's scenario.

No one put pregnant Laci in the Bay on December 24 or any other day. It just didn't happen.

Heather in Texas said...

I have had to take pathology courses; which includes dealing with dead tissues. I am taking Dr. Peterson's measurements and the testimony straight from the trial record.

How do you explain the barnacles growing on her skeleton? She would have to be in a type of environment (ie the bay) in order for that to happen.

A Voice of Sanity said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bruce Dombrowski said...

PETERSON: "So I hope that leads to a good resolution in finding her and the child."

the child? the child? how about "my baby", or "My son" even "my kid" would have been better than "the child"

PETERSON: "The most important thing is finding Laci."

I wonder if he felt that way the night of the vigil? sure didnt seem like it to me...

Marlene Newell said...

Bruce, do you have the date/time or the exhibit # for the phone call in which he said "the child"? Thanks

Bruce Dombrowski said...

copied from above post:


Jane said...
Heather, you should do some more reading.

Some quotes from the Jan 6-8 conversations with Amber for those who say Scott was not trying to find his wife and did not love her.

Marlene Newell said...

One thing very positive about Scott -- he NEVER blamed Laci for the affair. It is very typical for men who have affairs to give all the reasons why the wife is responsible -- Scott never did, never once, even though Amber did her best to egg him on.

Another thing, Scott never once threw Amber under the bus -- NOT ONCE did he ever suggest that she had anything to do with Laci's disappearance, even though he had plenty of opportunity to do so. NOT ONCE did he ever say Amber was to blame for the affair -- that she seduced him or tricked him. That, too, is common behavior for men who commit adultery, to put the responsibility for the affair on the shoulders of the other woman.

Another thing about Scott -- not once did he ever criticize Amber's morality. Not once did he ever criticize Amber's choices in life.

And when Amber demanded that he make comparisons between her and Laci, he said only good things about each of them.

Scott assumed full responsibility for the affair -- he never once even hinted at blaming anyone but himself.

Marlene Newell said...

@Heather -- yes, she did have to be in the Bay for a period of time to have barnacles. Barnacles attach as miscroscopic critters and once attached, stay put. They attach in intertidal areas and then travel wherever their host takes them; however, lots of time their hosts stay put, too.

No one appears to have measured the barnacles, but Pin Kyo said there were "many" and she used terms like "large" to make note in her testimony that some were bigger than others.

That means she was in an intertidal area for successive settlements of barnacles.

The route for Scott's fishing trip is not an intertidal area. The location where Cheng said the bodies separated is not an intertidal area.

Intertidal areas are only covered at the higher high tides -- meaning the objects to which the barnacles are attached are exposed the majority of the time.