Friday, December 30, 2011

We interrupt our coverage of the Investigation to wish SII a Happy Birthday

It's a little belated, the days do tend to get away from me, but on December 26, 2003, SII made its debut on the World Wide Web.  Needless to say, I certainly didn't think we'd still be at this 8 years later.

What prompted me to put up SII?  Well, to make a long story short, I grew tired of the constant talk among those not at all convinced of Scott's guilt that someone should put up a website to counteract all the misinformation out there about Laci's disappearance and Scott's arrest and hearings.  I thought to myself, hey, maybe I can do that.  I had a small personal site up so I thought I knew enough to put up an information/opinion website.  Well, I was partly right, but I gained what knowledge I needed as I went along.

What surprised me most was the sheer hatred and contempt the site would generate.  It took me a long while to develop a thick-enough skin to deal with it.  I keep reminding myself that words on paper may espouse stronger feelings than the writer actually feels.  But mostly I just ignore the hate. Sincere disagreement, however, I welcome.  

SII grew much too large to handle, and that is why I opted to use a blog to keep interested readers updated on the case and to bring new information to light.  Had I to do over again, I would have used a blog from the beginning for opinions, trial coverage, and updates, and reserved SII for only the objective information, such as court documents, transcripts, and exhibits.  But it would take too much effort to divide the content now and I believe SII readers are intelligent enough to tell the difference between a transcript and an opinion article.

Because of SII, I've learned a lot that I would not otherwise have had the need to learn.  It's good for the aging soul to have something new to learn on a daily basis.  When I was laid off in 2004, suffered a stroke a few months later, and unable to find work for years, working on SII and a few other wrongful convictions gave me something very worthwhile to fill my time and keep my mind engaged.  I love my kids and grand-kids, but the mind needs something challenging to keep aging at bay.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming . . .


Burkey said...

The more a person ages, the more experience he or she has.....and knowledge....and sharing it is what keeps the world turning properly...

I didn't realize the site was started on December is perfectly fine. It's clearly marked and easy to tell what's opinion and what's evidence and so forth. I think it's a great site, an example of citizen journalism the type of which is really the saving grace of people who want to be informed and are frustrated at the lack of sane discourse out there.

I think the TV folks don't like the Net much because it's competition, so they discredit information found online as "Internet Rumors.." heard that one? While it's true that rumors rage online, it's also true that anyone with a skeptical mind can root around enough for facts online that it's not difficult to tell what's verifiable and what isn't. Basic common sense, what's the source of the info, what are the source's motivations or possible motivations, what are the contradictions, can they be resolved, how many sources corroborate any given piece of information, etc.

When you have a case like Peterson's and it's the official sources (transcripts, memoirs) that reveal original media reports to be false, for example the trial testimony that revealed the Petersons took out the life insurance when they financed their house, for example: then it becomees clear where the journalism is.

It's really that simple. It means the real story takes a while to get out there, but get out it does.

Thanks for being the media Marlene. Happy New Year. CB

Marlene Newell said...

Happy New Year to you, too, CB.

LA Curry said...

Just wanted to add this info as to what I was referring to in my last post.....
Here is the link where the prosecution states that the jury heard that Diane Jackson had seen the Medina burglary on the 24th of 7 under the section entitled "Step 2".

LA Curry said...

Uh oh....looks like my first post didn't make it. So, I will summarize.

Thank you Marlene for all the hard work and fact gathering you have done to give us the truth. It is this very case that I so sadly learned that the tv "news" talking heads rarely report on fact or truth. While it was a blow to learn this, I am happy I did and I hope that everyone else out there will try to have an open mind and do some research for themselves and not just repeat what they think they heard from these tv "news" hosts.

At any rate, how could the prosecution refer to the burglary date as the 24th in a reply to a motion filed by the defense and then turn around during the trial and claim the burglary happened on the 26th. It's just a case of them wanting to have their cake and eat it too....and that is just plain wrong in my opinion.

Happy Belated Birthday!

Marlene Newell said...

La Curry, thanks for pointing out that section of the State's motion. I think, however, what they were saying is that the Jury was told the Defense's claim that the burglary happened on the 24th, and was told what Todd said about the woman, and the Jury was admonished by the Judge pretty much to the effect that don't believe what a burglar is going to say in the back seat of a police car when he's being arrested -- and they convicted anyway. Not that they were ambiguous on when the burglary actually occurred. This section was in response to the Defense claim that "new evidence" (Mr. R information that come to them late in the trial) demanded a retrial, and the State simply said, hey, the Jury heard all of that innuendo about the burglary and weren't impressed.

What the State brushes over, however, is a key statement in the Judge's instructions -- not to be taken for the truth. That is what failing to allow the Defense to call this new witness added to all the references to the Medina burglary -- it would allow the jury to finally have something that is admitted for the truth!

LA Curry said...

Thanks for the clarification! I did not understand that completely. Whether they agreed or not, I still do not believe they should have acknowledged that the jury heard the defense claim that the burglary happened on the 24th...but, as you said, they had to in order to defend the position of protesting the new witness.

I did look up Steven Todd and Donald Pearce's records on the Stanislaus county website....and I am convinced that someone out there knows what REALLY happened during that burglary. Both men have a record a mile long and those kind of people hang with people that approve of those types of things. Surely they didn't keep all those "cool" details to themselves?

The whole thing makes me so mad....people like that get deals and pleas for YEARS and here is a missing wife and soon to be mother...and they choose to strike a deal with the burglars and go after the woman's husband who doesn't even have a minor blemish on his record?

The talking heads always remark that they do not believe in coincidences.....well, what are the odds of a woman turning up missing the very same day two witnesses (or more)see a burglary directly across the street from the woman's home. And then, someone overhears the conversation directly associating these burglars with the missing woman and reports it...and then all the proof of that recorded phone call ends up missing? I agree with those talking heads on one thing...I don't believe in coincidences either. It is my opinion that the burglary was directly associated with Laci's disappearance. Maybe in the future one of these men will get locked up for life and will tell what they know.