Thursday, July 31, 2008
Anyone recognize this photo?
Quite a long time ago, someone sent me this picture of a cave on the Albany Bulb. I misfiled the picture and just found it again. I would very much like to know the exact location of this cave. If you sent me this picture, or if you know the location of this cave, please email marlenenewell1247@yahoo.com.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Exonerating evidence from Laci's autopsy
We have finished the page entitled "Exonerating evidence from Laci's autopsy."
You can access this page right from the home page http://www.pwc-sii.com/ (scroll down to The Evidence Proves Factual Innocence - it's the 5th item listed) or from the Research & Analysis page (click Part One, click The bodies are found, click Laci).
Or, use our quick link.
You can access this page right from the home page http://www.pwc-sii.com/ (scroll down to The Evidence Proves Factual Innocence - it's the 5th item listed) or from the Research & Analysis page (click Part One, click The bodies are found, click Laci).
Or, use our quick link.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Another case of a woman being murdered for her baby
When we've brought up the possibility that Laci was murdered for Conner (although Sharon Rocha had the same suspicions in the early days of Laci's disappearance), we have been laughed to scorn.
Well, whether or not that's what happened to Laci, it does happen. And we have a new case. The woman has been found dead, her baby cut out of her. Another woman has an infant she says is hers, but is not. She says she purchased the baby for $1,000.
Read about the details
Well, whether or not that's what happened to Laci, it does happen. And we have a new case. The woman has been found dead, her baby cut out of her. Another woman has an infant she says is hers, but is not. She says she purchased the baby for $1,000.
Read about the details
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Get over the hate
Recently, the LA Times published an article entitled, Reaching out from death row. The article fronted Scott Peterson, followed by California death row inmates Randy Kraft, Charles Ng, and Richard Davis. The article goes on to report how death row prisoners in many states have access to the internet through third parties and what states are doing to minimize the risks to the public.
This article brought on a new barrage of hate mail to those of us who publicly support Scott Peterson's factual innocence. I was not surprised.
I was surprised to read such vile hatred in comments to an article on the pending hearing for Susan Atkins, notorious for her part in the Sharon Tate murders. Atkins is dying and her family wanted her to have a mercy release so she could die with her family around her. The language in the comments was every bit as strong as what's been expressed against Scott Peterson, and yet these murders took place decades ago. (She has since been denied parole)
Equally distressing, however, were the comments that anyone who opposed Atkins' parole had no compassion, no mercy, and was not a good Christian.
Is it possible to not hate someone who committed a vicious murder and still not want them to be paroled? Yes, it is.
Love is not giving people a free pass for the wrongs they commit. The love that Jesus Christ encourages us to have forgives people their sins and lets God be the judge, but still requires the person to accept personal responsibility for his or her sins, including suffering through any penalty justly imposed by society. We do no one any favors when we allow them to break laws without suffering any consequences. That is not love.
Was Atkins' life sentence justly imposed? Yes, it was. There is no doubt about her participation in the murders. She was originally given the death penalty, but California, in one of its anti-death penalty phases, reduced all death sentences to life with possibility of parole (California did not yet have the life without possibility of parole sentence). When California reinstated its death penalty, it was not retroactive.
Many believe that Scott Peterson has been justly convicted and that he justly deserves the death penalty. I agree that whomever murdered Laci and Conner deserves the death penalty. I believe God authorizes societies to execute those who murder innocent people, but also places upon those societies the responsibility to take the utmost care that only the guilty are executed. That is why we have the appeals process, to make sure no innocent person is executed. It would be much better, however, if we had more safeguards in place to prevent the innocent from being wrongfully convicted in the first place. If a society executes an innocent person, it sheds innocent blood and is itself guilty of murder.
But God does not give anyone permission to hate another human being, no matter how heinous his or her sins are. He understands the feelings of hate that rise in our hearts when we first experience something, but he encourages us to get over it, the quicker the better. Hatred is self-destructive -- it hurts us, not the person we hate.
This article brought on a new barrage of hate mail to those of us who publicly support Scott Peterson's factual innocence. I was not surprised.
I was surprised to read such vile hatred in comments to an article on the pending hearing for Susan Atkins, notorious for her part in the Sharon Tate murders. Atkins is dying and her family wanted her to have a mercy release so she could die with her family around her. The language in the comments was every bit as strong as what's been expressed against Scott Peterson, and yet these murders took place decades ago. (She has since been denied parole)
Equally distressing, however, were the comments that anyone who opposed Atkins' parole had no compassion, no mercy, and was not a good Christian.
Is it possible to not hate someone who committed a vicious murder and still not want them to be paroled? Yes, it is.
Love is not giving people a free pass for the wrongs they commit. The love that Jesus Christ encourages us to have forgives people their sins and lets God be the judge, but still requires the person to accept personal responsibility for his or her sins, including suffering through any penalty justly imposed by society. We do no one any favors when we allow them to break laws without suffering any consequences. That is not love.
Was Atkins' life sentence justly imposed? Yes, it was. There is no doubt about her participation in the murders. She was originally given the death penalty, but California, in one of its anti-death penalty phases, reduced all death sentences to life with possibility of parole (California did not yet have the life without possibility of parole sentence). When California reinstated its death penalty, it was not retroactive.
Many believe that Scott Peterson has been justly convicted and that he justly deserves the death penalty. I agree that whomever murdered Laci and Conner deserves the death penalty. I believe God authorizes societies to execute those who murder innocent people, but also places upon those societies the responsibility to take the utmost care that only the guilty are executed. That is why we have the appeals process, to make sure no innocent person is executed. It would be much better, however, if we had more safeguards in place to prevent the innocent from being wrongfully convicted in the first place. If a society executes an innocent person, it sheds innocent blood and is itself guilty of murder.
But God does not give anyone permission to hate another human being, no matter how heinous his or her sins are. He understands the feelings of hate that rise in our hearts when we first experience something, but he encourages us to get over it, the quicker the better. Hatred is self-destructive -- it hurts us, not the person we hate.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
SII is no more . . .
SII has been taken down. When you access the domain scottisinnocent.com, all you will see is the notice that SII has moved and to please update your link with the pwc-sii URL.
Your browser search engine may continue to pull up old SII pages. These will not reflect the most current information.
If you cannot find what you are looking for on pwc-sii, use the Google search function on the Help Page.
We've added a number of items on the Research & Analysis Page, so if you haven't been there in a couple of days, you might want to visit again.
Your browser search engine may continue to pull up old SII pages. These will not reflect the most current information.
If you cannot find what you are looking for on pwc-sii, use the Google search function on the Help Page.
We've added a number of items on the Research & Analysis Page, so if you haven't been there in a couple of days, you might want to visit again.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Who moved the bodies, and Why?
We know that Conner did not wash ashore, and his body was placed on the Richmond Jetty shortly before he was found. The evidence is non-conclusive regarding Laci: she may have been placed in the Hoffman Bay on the night of the 12th/13th, or she may have been placed exactly where she was found during the early morning hours of the 14th.
These facts cause us to ponder some disturbing questions:
Why were they put on the Richmond Jetty and Point Isabel?
To incriminate Scott Peterson. He was clearly the only suspect. His fishing trip was well-publicized. Who didn't know that Scott Peterson went fishing at the Berkeley Marina on December 24? The Bay searches from late December through early April were well-publicized, and we knew they were searching in the Berkeley Marina, along the fishing route, and also in the Richmond Turning Basin (Chevron shipping channel). False reports had been given of bodies found. It didn't take a genius to know that finding the bodies in that area, anywhere in that area, would automatically incriminate Scott Peterson. Whomever planted the bodies there didn't need any specialized training or information -- anywhere along the shoreline from the Turning Basin to Berkeley Marina would have worked.
Why take the risk of moving the bodies?
It seems a foregone conclusion that whomever abducted Laci and murdered her and Conner was getting away with it -- Scott Peterson was the only suspect, and other leads had been summarily dismissed by the MPD with little or no investigation. So, why take the risk? Why not leave well enough alone?
Suppose the bodies were at risk of being discovered, and that discovery would force the MPD to look at other suspects. Suppose the bodies could be linked to one of the Laci-sightings the MPD ignored.
Suppose the bodies were actually found somewhere else, at a location linked to one of the Laci-sightings the MPD ignored.
Who moved the bodies?
Who had the most to lose if the bodies were found elsewhere? Who had the most to gain if the bodies were found at the Richmond Jetty and Point Isabel?
These facts cause us to ponder some disturbing questions:
Why were they put on the Richmond Jetty and Point Isabel?
To incriminate Scott Peterson. He was clearly the only suspect. His fishing trip was well-publicized. Who didn't know that Scott Peterson went fishing at the Berkeley Marina on December 24? The Bay searches from late December through early April were well-publicized, and we knew they were searching in the Berkeley Marina, along the fishing route, and also in the Richmond Turning Basin (Chevron shipping channel). False reports had been given of bodies found. It didn't take a genius to know that finding the bodies in that area, anywhere in that area, would automatically incriminate Scott Peterson. Whomever planted the bodies there didn't need any specialized training or information -- anywhere along the shoreline from the Turning Basin to Berkeley Marina would have worked.
Why take the risk of moving the bodies?
It seems a foregone conclusion that whomever abducted Laci and murdered her and Conner was getting away with it -- Scott Peterson was the only suspect, and other leads had been summarily dismissed by the MPD with little or no investigation. So, why take the risk? Why not leave well enough alone?
Suppose the bodies were at risk of being discovered, and that discovery would force the MPD to look at other suspects. Suppose the bodies could be linked to one of the Laci-sightings the MPD ignored.
Suppose the bodies were actually found somewhere else, at a location linked to one of the Laci-sightings the MPD ignored.
Who moved the bodies?
Who had the most to lose if the bodies were found elsewhere? Who had the most to gain if the bodies were found at the Richmond Jetty and Point Isabel?
Thursday, July 3, 2008
The Location and Position of Laci's Body
On the morning of April 14, 2003, Alena Gonzalez, her sister, and her father were walking their dogs at the Point Isabel dog park. Two of their dogs broke away from them and found something down among the riprap. Alena at first thought it was a dead animal, then discovered it was a human body. The human body was later determined by DNA to be Laci Peterson.
Since Conner did not wash ashore, we know that Scott Peterson did not put a pregnant Laci into the Bay on December 24, 2002. How, then, did Laci get to where she was found? It stretches the imagination too much to believe that Laci just happened to wash ashore on the day after Conner's body was placed on the Richmond Jetty. The logical conclusion is that the two bodies were found on subsequent days because they both were placed to be found.
With Conner, we know that he was placed in the exact location he was found. With Laci, that wasn't necessarily the case. She could have been put into the water at Point Isabel, and allowed to wash ashore. It wouldn't matter where she washed ashore, as anywhere in that general area would incriminate Scott Peterson because of his fishing trip on December 24. The other possibility is that she, too, was placed exactly where she was found.
Evidence collected to date fails to prove conclusively which scenario happened. However, the more likely scenario is that Laci was put into the Hoffman Channel during ebb tide the night of April 12/13, expecting that she would wash ashore nearby. When her body didn't surface with the high tide on the morning of the 13th, Conner was placed on the Jetty so he would be found in a way that would not risk his body also being lost. Then, unexpectedly, Laci did wash ashore on the morning of the 14th.
Continue
Since Conner did not wash ashore, we know that Scott Peterson did not put a pregnant Laci into the Bay on December 24, 2002. How, then, did Laci get to where she was found? It stretches the imagination too much to believe that Laci just happened to wash ashore on the day after Conner's body was placed on the Richmond Jetty. The logical conclusion is that the two bodies were found on subsequent days because they both were placed to be found.
With Conner, we know that he was placed in the exact location he was found. With Laci, that wasn't necessarily the case. She could have been put into the water at Point Isabel, and allowed to wash ashore. It wouldn't matter where she washed ashore, as anywhere in that general area would incriminate Scott Peterson because of his fishing trip on December 24. The other possibility is that she, too, was placed exactly where she was found.
Evidence collected to date fails to prove conclusively which scenario happened. However, the more likely scenario is that Laci was put into the Hoffman Channel during ebb tide the night of April 12/13, expecting that she would wash ashore nearby. When her body didn't surface with the high tide on the morning of the 13th, Conner was placed on the Jetty so he would be found in a way that would not risk his body also being lost. Then, unexpectedly, Laci did wash ashore on the morning of the 14th.
Continue
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)