tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4083330089081355373.post7053826356334633397..comments2023-08-24T10:28:18.911-05:00Comments on Justice for Scott Peterson: Did Cheng use the wrong starting point?Marlene Newellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776470021880189163noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4083330089081355373.post-87185104645728742262008-05-13T12:47:00.000-05:002008-05-13T12:47:00.000-05:00Soler is the one who provided the information to t...Soler is the one who provided the information to the MPD.<BR/><BR/>But, the only way we can ever know for sure is for Dr. Cheng to disclose the data he used to compile the Progressive Vector Diagram.<BR/><BR/>That is also necessary for him to refute my claim that the wind information he gave in his testimony is not accurate.Marlene Newellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776470021880189163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4083330089081355373.post-80762655213724402952008-05-13T12:24:00.000-05:002008-05-13T12:24:00.000-05:00Wearing A Halo said:I do not think that Dr. Cheng ...Wearing A Halo said:<BR/><BR/>I do not think that Dr. Cheng used J Soler's calculations. J Soler calculated on 12/18/03 per People's 101. The proposed survey began on June 23, 2003. Dr. Cheng was given the locations of where Conner and Laci washed up and the point off of Brooks Island that SP had given to MPD. It is in Det. Hendee's testimony.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4083330089081355373.post-46143690946290190122008-05-13T08:30:00.000-05:002008-05-13T08:30:00.000-05:00How far was Conner from the debris line? It's imp...How far was Conner from the debris line? It's impossible to say exactly, without knowing exactly where that flag was put.<BR/><BR/>The problem is, and you can see it from the pictures I have on SII, the rocks in the breakwaters do not form a straight line. <BR/><BR/>So, it all depends on which rock Soler measured from. That could make a difference of half a foot or more.<BR/><BR/>On the July 15, 2006 field trip, I took measurements from two different rocks. <BR/><BR/>But, the major point of the debris line is that he was beyond it, and there is no disturbance in it to show that he landed in front of it, then was rolled back by the wind or some other unknown event. <BR/><BR/>According to the NOAA's definitions, the debris line shows the landward limits of the tide. <BR/><BR/>One thing many people forget is that he was found on a grassy area that has dry gound in front and on both sides. The grass, which is 4-6 inches high, causes the water from the rising tide to follow the dry ground around that section. I show that in one of the videos on SII, you can see the water coming onto the path behind that grassy section long before you see any substantial water in that section itself.Marlene Newellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776470021880189163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4083330089081355373.post-38877096340261255132008-05-13T08:17:00.000-05:002008-05-13T08:17:00.000-05:00Yes, 173 is most probably the accurate measurement...Yes, 173 is most probably the accurate measurement, according to the measurements I took at the Jetty. Of course, the rocks do not present a "straight" line from which to measure, but measuring 173 from the west breakwater at 24 feet inland from the south breakwater, lands you in that grassy section shown in the pictures from the field trips on SII and also in Defense WW1-4 and People's 96E-G. <BR/><BR/>However, Soler wasn't reading off People's 101 -- he created People's 101. He gave the information, 73 feet. He says so in his testimony. <BR/><BR/>He repeats 73 feet in his testimony.<BR/><BR/>He collected the data, he created People's 101. He marked the location on People's 98A. <BR/><BR/>So, he is without excuse.<BR/><BR/>And Cheng used People's 101 to start his Progressive Vector Diagram. I don't see any way to conclude anything else, from what is in the transcripts.<BR/><BR/>Cheng will have to provide the actual data he used for the PVD in order to prove that he did not use 73 feet instead of the correct 173 feet. <BR/><BR/>If he didn't use 73 feet, that still does not overcome the other flaws--they remain independent of this factor.<BR/><BR/>If he did use 73 feet, then that adds one more serious flaw.Marlene Newellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776470021880189163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4083330089081355373.post-62121335381389609332008-05-13T08:06:00.000-05:002008-05-13T08:06:00.000-05:00No, it is not less flawed -- it remains just as fl...No, it is not less flawed -- it remains just as flawed, because no one has shown us why the previous flaws we have pointed out are not indeed flaws, and those flaws are more than sufficient to qualify Cheng's Progressive Vector Diagram as junk science.<BR/><BR/>Knowing that he used People's 101, however, makes the situation even more serious because now the Prosecution is directly involved in the junk science by having provided him with incorrect data. <BR/><BR/>The Prosecution has to take the blame for Soler's mistake because the Prosecution is legally responsible for every piece of information provided in Court as well as to its expert witnesses as they prepare their reports/testimony for Court.Marlene Newellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776470021880189163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4083330089081355373.post-24543515220512008402008-05-13T08:00:00.000-05:002008-05-13T08:00:00.000-05:00Where in the transcripts does he say what he used ...Where in the transcripts does he say what he used for the starting point, other than the exact location where they were found The only exact location we have for Conner is Soler's diagram, People's 101. So you are admitting he used People's 101? If not, then prove where in the transcript he says he didn't, that he used some other measurment to determine Conner's exact location.Marlene Newellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776470021880189163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4083330089081355373.post-89665742392663415202008-05-12T23:57:00.000-05:002008-05-12T23:57:00.000-05:00http://scottisinnocent.com/Research&Analysis/evide...http://scottisinnocent.com/Research&Analysis/evidence/Conner/96Ewconner.JPG<BR/><BR/>How far would you say Conner was from the debris line? IMO, Conner could not have been more than one foot away and very likely less than a foot. Conner was not in the middle between the foot path and the debris line. Conner was just "above" the debris line--barely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4083330089081355373.post-61349600847927828882008-05-12T23:32:00.000-05:002008-05-12T23:32:00.000-05:00"Recently, in our discussion of People's 101 on th..."Recently, in our discussion of People's 101 on the SII Yahoo Group, we noted that Soler represents the exact location where Conner was found to be 73 feet inland from the west breakwater. In his testimony, he gave the same information."<BR/><BR/>----------------------<BR/><BR/>J. Soler was off by 100' and he was reading off of People's 101 which was not to scale.<BR/><BR/>http://scottisinnocent.com/Research&Analysis/evidence/Conner/overviewconner.PNG<BR/><BR/>has a scale of 25m; 25m = 83 ft. 53m = 173ft.; 7m = 24ft.<BR/><BR/>So, 173' is roughly accurate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4083330089081355373.post-60377512420888167982008-05-12T22:53:00.000-05:002008-05-12T22:53:00.000-05:00"If he did in fact use the measurements in People'..."If he did in fact use the measurements in People's 101, then his Progressive Vector Diagram is even more flawed than we previously thought."<BR/><BR/>----------------------<BR/><BR/>Just so we are on the right track, <BR/><BR/>If (Dr. Cheng) did not in fact use the measurements in People's 101, then his Progressive Vector Diagram is less flawed than you all previously thought???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4083330089081355373.post-31159772303734969122008-05-12T22:47:00.000-05:002008-05-12T22:47:00.000-05:00"Unfortunately, Cheng was not asked specifically i..."Unfortunately, Cheng was not asked specifically if he used Solar's measurements in People's 101, so we have to read between the lines."<BR/><BR/>There is no need "to read between the lines." Just read the transcripts--it is all there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com