The 2002 Season Finale of the Sopranos

Both Sharon and Ron testified that they went over to dinner at Laci's and Scott's on December 15, 2002, and that was the last time Sharon saw Laci alive, though she talked a few times to her on the phone after that.

DISTASO: And then before we get to that, though, when is the last time that you physically saw your daughter, not talk to her on the phone, but actually saw her in person?

ROCHA: December 15th.

DISTASO: And that was at the dinner you told us about?

ROCHA: Yes.

In her book, For Laci, pages 74-75, Sharon writes about that dinner:

At dinner, I said that Ron and I had gone fishing earlier in the
morning. Laci's eyes widened. I rarely went fishing with him, so it was

news. And it prompted a funny description of me bundled up in a
chair beside the river. It was also a perfect opportunity for Scott—or
Laci—to mention that he'd bought a fishing boat the week before.
But the subject never came up because (a) Laci didn't know and (b)
because Scott didn't want us to know.
For some reason, Laci mentioned that Scott had told her that the
warehouse he rented for work in an industrial part of town was so full
he had to step over things to get to his office. I'd never seen the warehouse
myself. I didn't even know what it looked like until I saw photos
at the preliminary hearing. By that time I couldn't remember why she
had brought it up, but I knew it didn't have anything to do with a
boat.

Ron specifically said in his testimony that the night they went over was the season finale of The Sopranos:

GRANTSKI: Yeah. That was the plan. The way it worked was it was the last episode of Sopranos and I was complaining because it comes on on cable at 9:00 o'clock, and Scott and Laci had satellite, and Laci said Well, we get it at 6:00, why don't you come over for dinner and we'll watch the last episode. So that's what we did.

DISTASO: Okay. Coming on at, at 9:00 o'clock, were you, is that, is that a little late in your normal typical schedule?

GRANTSKI: Yeah. I get up at 3:30, 4:30 at the latest every day and, so...

DISTASO: As part of your job, do you, do you drive to a lot of different locations? You know, wherever your construction projects are going on?

GRANTSKI: Yes, I put between 35 and 50,000 miles a year on my car, so I do a lot of driving.

DISTASO: So you're up early?

GRANTSKI: Yes.

DISTASO: And you get to your sites and you do your thing early?

GRANTSKI: Yes.

DISTASO: And you go to bed early after that?

GRANTSKI: Yes.

DISTASO: So you went over to Laci's house and the Sopranos came on at 6:00 because they have satellite, right?

However, the 2002 season finale of The Sopranos did not air on December 15, 2002 -- it aired on December 8, as shown in this chart from Wikipedia.

Ron also revealed in his testimony that it was Scott initiating the increased contact between the two families -- not Laci, and not Sharon:

GERAGOS: Okay. The, is it a fair statement that as Laci got more pregnant, or as the pregnancy proceeded, that Scott made an effort to try and include you and Sharon more with them? 

GRANTSKI: Yes, he did. 

GERAGOS: Okay. 

GRANTSKI: Yes, he did. 

GERAGOS: And would that also involve having you and Sharon, as she progressively got more pregnant, or the due date approached, coming over on Sundays, for instance, for dinners? 

GRANTSKI: Yes. 

GERAGOS: Okay. And that he wanted to spend more time or have the families get closer together? 

GRANTSKI: About two weeks before Laci, 

GERAGOS: Disappeared? 

GRANTSKI: disappeared, I made a point of asking Sharon about that, you know, it's kind of strange, we're all starting to get together. She said that Scott, Laci said, Scott wanted us to spend more time together because of the baby.

The Sunday before Laci's disappearance was the 22nd.  Two weeks before the 22nd as the 8th.  So it's logical to conclude that Ron asked Sharon about the increased visits between the families on the night they last went to Laci's for dinner.

Scott didn't tell Sharon and Ron about the boat purchase because he hadn't yet bought the boat on December 8.  He didn't buy it until the next day.  And, despite his personal failings with fidelity, he very much was doing what he could to become closer to Laci's family.

The dinner being on the 8th makes sense of the "warehouse being so cramped" conversation.  Since Sharon was wrong about the date, there's no reason to believe that she is entirely right in her memory of how that conversation went.  It likely was some good-humored chatter between Laci and Scott about how he was going to fit a boat in the warehouse as cramped as it already was.  Sharon and Ron may not have known that Scott actually bought the boat, but I highly suspect they knew that Scott was talking about buying one.

The tidal data captured the tsunami

I am often told that the tidal data from NOAA doesn't really matter because unexpected things can happen in the Bay. Yes, that's true, the unexpected can happen.  I don't think anyone expected the 8.9 magnitude earthquake to hit Japan late last week, or that the resulting tsunami would make its way to our Western coast -- but that's exactly what happened.

I went to the NOAA's San Francisco and Richmond stations to see just what effect that tsunami had on the water levels.  The tsunami hit the Golden Gate Bridge with 2 foot waves about 8 a.m. on the 11th.  "Water is coming in, going out, coming back in again, " [National Weather Service forecaster Diana] Henderson said.  Source


And that is exactly the way San Francisco's station data looks -- water coming in, going out, coming back in again.  As you can see from the plot, the water level had been a little below predicted.  About 8 a.m. on the 11th, the water level became very erratic, in the initial hours going up and down by as much as 3 feet.

The Richmond station didn't show such dramatic water level ups and downs, as it is 9 miles further north, but still a very noticeable effect.  

I hope this finally convinces the skeptics that the water level data from the NOAA does accurately reflect what's going on in real-time in the Bay.

Luckily for the Bay, the tsunami's arrival had the best timing -- during a LL tide and a period of lower than average H and HH tides.

The whipping cream

Sharon Rocha and others tried very hard to make the case that Laci was very tired and worn out in the days preceding December 24, and therefore not likely to have taken McKenzie for a walk that morning.

Yet, Sharon thought nothing of asking her daughter to stop by the store to pick up some whipping cream on her way over for dinner.

ROCHA: No, I thought about calling her. I went to see a movie later or early afternoon with a friend of mine. And many times Laci would come with us. I would ask her to join us, but I didn't call her that day because I knew she had been having problems. She wasn't comfortable. She wasn't comfortable sitting for long periods of time. She was in the later stage of her pregnancy and she just wasn't comfortable so I decided not to call her. 

DISTASO: And you were expecting her at your home for dinner? 

ROCHA: At 6:00 o'clock that evening, yes. 

DISTASO: And what time did you get home on the 24th where you were home and kind of getting the dinner ready and that kind of thing? 

ROCHA: I don't remember exactly what time it was. I'm thinking the movie was around 1:00 or so, so it was probably 3:00, 3:30 when I got home. I remember at one point when I was getting things, putting things together, I realized I didn't have whipping cream so I asked Ron to call Laci and to stop on her way over and pick that up. 

DISTASO: And to your knowledge did Ron do that?  

ROCHA: Yes, he did. And there was no answer, so he left a message for her to do that, 

DISTASO: Okay. 

ROCHA: asking her to pick up the whipping cream.

The first oddity is that she had Ron call Laci, instead of calling herself.  The second oddity is that she didn't just ask Ron to go down and pick some up at Save Mart.  As you can see on this map, Save Mart was just a few blocks away for Ron.  He'd only worked half a day and spent a few hours relaxing while fishing -- surely he could make a quick trip to the store to buy some whipping cream.

Laci wasn't expected until 6 p.m.  I checked to see if Save Mart closed early on Christmas Eve.  Every locality I've ever lived, grocery stores close early on Christmas Eve.  I checked online, and it seems that Save Mart has a habit of closing at 5 p.m. on Christmas Eve.  Did Sharon not know this?  Because it would have meant that Laci couldn't just pick it up on the way to dinner -- either she or Scott would have to go somewhere earlier than that to get it.  This is only important in the context of Sharon claiming that Laci was so tired that she couldn't possibly have walked McKenzie that morning, and here she is asking Laci to pick up whipping cream for her when the store was just a few blocks from where she and Ron lived.

The other oddity about the story is that Sharon doesn't seem concerned that Laci didn't call back to confirm that she would be bringing the whipping cream to the dinner.  It seems that if it didn't cause her to worry about her daughter whom she claims was so tired and worn out, she would have at least wanted to know for sure if she would have the whipping cream to top her "great chocolate pie."

I think the real truth is that Sharon knew very well that Laci wasn't so tired that she couldn't walk the dog that morning, but there was no way to get out of the whipping cream message because it was on Laci's telephone recordings that night for Brocchini to hear.

Regardless of the truth about Laci's true physical condition, I think it's tacky for Ron to call Laci to get whipping cream instead of going down to the store himself to get it.  No wonder Scott made him look bad for not doing enough, if he wasn't willing to run such an easy errand for Sharon, especially since his family were the other guests coming over that night.

The absence of the expected: Why didn't postmortem fetal extrusion occur?

Postmortem fetal extrusion, the academic name for coffin birth, "is the expulsion of a nonviable fetus through the vaginal opening of the decomposing body of a pregnant woman as a result of the increasing pressure of intraabdominal gases" (Wikipedia).  Because of modern-day embalming practices, postmortem fetal extrusion occurs only in forensic contexts.  Baby Conner was not a case of postmortem fetal extrusion, as he was not forced out of Laci's womb by the increasing pressure of intraabdominal gases as she decomposed and he just simply would not have survived in the Bay waters that long.  But why didn't postmortem fetal extrusion occur as Laci decomposed?  


The Wikipedia article explains the decomposition process and at which stage a postmortem fetal extrusion would occur (I added the underlining):

Typically, as a dead body decomposes, body tissues become depleted of oxygen and the body begins to putrefy; anaerobic bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract proliferate and as a result of increased metabolic activity, release gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and hydrogen sulfide.^[6][7] Bacterial exoenzymes weaken tissues, and increasing pressure forces the diffusion of gases into other tissues where they enter the circulatory system and spread to other parts of the body, causing both torso and limbs to become bloated. These decompositional processes weaken the structural integrity of organs by separating necrotizing tissue layers.^[7] Bloating usually begins from two to five days after death, depending on external temperature, humidity, and other environmental conditions.^[8] As the volume of gas increases, the pressure begins to force various body fluids to exude from all natural orifices.^[9]It is at this point during the decomposition of a pregnant body that amniotic membranes become stretched and separated, and intraabdominal gas pressure may force the prolapse of the uterus, which would result in the expulsion of the fetus through the vaginal canal.^[10] The bodies of women who have experienced vaginal childbirth at least once in their lives are more likely to spontaneously expel the fetus during decomposition than those who died during their first pregnancy, due to the more elastic nature of the cervix.^[11] 

What would have prevented Laci's body from decomposing exactly as described?  The State argued a "soft kill" as the explanation for lack of forensic evidence at the crime scenes.  Dr. Peterson said that the head and limbs were missing because of disarticulation through the process of decomposition, not dismemberment.  Dr. Peterson also declared that there was no injury to the uterus, except what occurred through the natural decomposition process.  Just exactly what prevented Laci from reaching this point . . . during her decomposition?

The December 1, 2005 issue of Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology, includes an article about a postmortem fetal extrusion, "Postmortem fetal extrusion in a case of maternal heroin intoxication."

A 34-year-old heroin addict in the eighth month of pregnancy was found dead in her apartment. The head of a fetus was partly protruding from underneath the woman’s slip. At the time of autopsy, the body was in a state of advanced putrefaction with greenish discoloration of almost the complete body surface showing pronounced marbling and, in addition, now not only the head but also the upper part of the chest of a dead fetus were extruding from the birth canal with head presentation. Autopsy showed no signs of external violence prior to death and, in particular, no indication of preceding manipulations in the region of the obstetrical canal and the uterus could be detected. The uterine cavity showed pronounced putrefactive alterations with the amniotic membranes being partially raised and bloated in a balloon-like fashion. Toxicological analyses revealed acute heroin intoxication of mother and child. The immature neonate showed no signs of live birth. Pathogenetically, the finding of not only the head but also the upper part of the chest of the fetus extruding from the birth canal at the time of autopsy (contrary to the observation made at the death scene that only part of the head of the fetus was protruding) is consistent with post-mortem fetal extrusion caused by putrefactive gas pressure against the pregnant uterus as reported in the earlier German forensic pathological literature.  (Abstract)

At autopsy, medical examiners found that both the head and shoulders of the fetus had emerged, and concluded that it was a case of postmortem fetal extrusion in progress. (Wikipedia)

Only part of the head was seen extruding at the crime scene, but by the time the autopsy was performed, both the head and the shoulders had emerged -- which shows that postmortem fetal extrusion is a process, just like birth, and not a single explosive burst expelling the baby.

The heroin addict had given birth twice before.  In this 2008 case, Wikipedia does not reveal whether the homicide victim had previously given birth.

In 2008, the body of a 38 year old woman, seven months’ pregnant, was discovered in an open field four days after she had disappeared from her residence in Panama.^[1] A plastic bag had been left over the head, and she had been gagged; the case was ruled a homicide. The body had suffered from the tropical heat and high humidity, and was bloated and highly discolored. At autopsy, the remains of the fetus were discovered in the woman's undergarments. Although the fetus was in a similar state of decomposition, the umbilical cord was intact and still attached to the placenta inside the uterus.^[1] This case demonstrates that clothing will not necessarily hinder the extrusion of the fetus due to decomposition.  (Wikipedia)

This 2008 case definitely shows that Laci's clothing would not have prevented a fetal extrusion.

The introduction to the article "Postmortem fetal extrusion in a case of maternal heroin intoxication." states that "according to the literature, only fetuses with cephalic presentation are expelled" (pg. 273).  Cephalic presentation is also known as vertex position, or head down, and is the normal position for a vaginal delivery.  Dr. Esther Tow-Der, one of Laci's OB-GYN doctors, testified that on December 23, 2002, Conner was head down.

TOW-DER: We did a weight measurement. She had adequate weight. Blood pressure was normal, her fundal height development was very normal for that time. The baby had good fetal heart tones. Baby was noted to be in vertex fetal position, meaning head down. Patient had very slight swelling. I put down trace. Considered a low-risk pregnancy. I told her follow-up in three weeks.

 <<<

GERAGOS: Good. The -- you said there was a -- the baby was in a vertex presentation?

TOW-DER: Correct.

GERAGOS: That was the first -- you had seen -- or somebody, I guess, had seen Laci, what, a month before, approximately?

TOW-DER: I had seen her a month, approximately one month prior.

GERAGOS: Okay. What date was that?

TOW-DER: November 25th, 2002.

GERAGOS: And on November 25th, was the baby in a vertex position?

TOW-DER: At that point I could not determine that by Leopold's maneuver.

GERAGOS: Okay. Could you explain what the vertex -- vertex position is?

TOW-DER: Vertex means that the baby is now head-down inside the pelvis. Where we call it breach when it's anything other than that. It's just the buttocks is down or it's feet down. In a normal vaginal delivery we would ideally want the baby's head down so the head comes out first.

GERAGOS: Could you -- is there a way for you to describe if the baby is in a vertex position -- and that's how you saw the baby on the 23rd; is that correct?

TOW-DER: I determined that by doing what we call Leopold's maneuver. We actually palpate, to see if we can determine where the head position is at that time, on the abdomen.

GERAGOS: Okay. And does that mean that the head is facing down?

TOW-DER: It doesn't say which way the face is facing. The head is actually pointing downward.

GERAGOS: Okay. Were you able to determine on the 23rd which way the face was -- or which direction –

TOW-DER: That you cannot determine just by Leopold's maneuver.

GERAGOS: Okay. So on the 23rd, all you could determine is that the baby was in a vertex position?

TOW-DER: Head down.

GERAGOS: Head down, which would mean buttocks up?

TOW-DER: Correct.

There aren't many more ways to say that Conner was head down, but the fact that it was repeated so much ensures that it was not a misspeak on Dr. Tow-Der's part.

Conclusion
The State, by necessity, argued that Laci was killed by a soft kill.  The State also argued that Laci disarticulated through the normal decomposition processes, she was not dismembered.  On December 23, 2002, Conner was observed to be in the cephalic or head down position, necessary for a fetal extrusion to occur.  Two subsequent cases of postmortem fetal extrusion plainly show that in the advanced stages of pregnancy, such as Laci was, the normal decomposition processes will produce fetal extrusion long before the female reaches the state of decomposition in which Laci was found.  And the 2008 case clearly shows that clothing will not deter the fetal extrusion.

So why didn't postmortem fetal extrusion happen in Laci's case?

This is just one more absence of the expected that screams out for reasonable people to seriously question this conviction.

July 15, 2006 Field Trip - CRS at 5.83 feet with gusty winds

On July 15, 2006 I made a field trip to the Conner Recovery Site for the purpose of observing whether an object the size of Conner could pass through the rocks, and if it did, to observe where it came to rest.

The Richmond 9414863 station reported a peak water level of 5.94 feet for July 15, compared to 5.88 feet for April 13, 2003.  This video from July 15, however, was taken between 4:37-4:44 p.m, when the water level was around 5.83 feet.  5.88 feet is 6/10 of an inch above 5.83 feet.  When the HH tide is nearing its peak, it doesn't vary much between each 6-minute interval.

9414863 20060715 16:36    5.90    5.80
9414863 20060715 16:42    5.91    5.83
9414863 20060715 16:48    5.92    5.86

9414863 20060715 16:54    5.92    5.88

9414863 20060715 17:00    5.92    5.91

9414863 20060715 17:06    5.91    5.94

9414863 20060715 17:12    5.89    5.92

The wind conditions on July 15, 2006 were not as gusty as on April 13, 2003, as reported by the BAAQMD UC Richmond station.

April 13, 2003 HH tide peaked at 10:06
9:00 a.m.:  speed 11 mph, gusts 18 mph, direction 186 degrees (South)
10:00 a.m.:  speed 14 mph, gusts 23 mph, direction 180 degrees (South)
11:00 a.m.:  speed 14 mph, gusts 23 mph, direction 169 degrees (South)

July 15, 2006 at time of this video, 4:37-4:44 p.m.
4:00 p.m.:  speed 10 mph, gusts 16 mph, direction 184 degrees (South)
5:00 p.m.:  speed 10 mph, gusts 17 mph, direction 181 degrees (South)

I mistakenly say on the video that the wind is from the West.  I truly am directionally impaired.  WARNING:  this video includes a stuffed bear trying to get through the rocks.  Do not watch if this will disturb you.   But those who watch will see that gusty wind combined with this low water level would not be a friend to a tender, decomposing baby trying to make its way through these rocks.  Even though there are spaces between the rocks large enough for bear to pass through, the breaking waves do not make for a smooth journey.

December 5, 2005 Field Trip - The CRS at 5.96 feet

On December 23, 2010, I made a field trip to the Conner Recovery Site and published photos of close-ups of the rock breakwater that Conner had to get across to land where he was found in my article entitled "A formidable barrier."  The section of breakwater that he had to cross was established by my December 5, 2005 field trip, documented on SII, for the sole purpose of determining if there was another water channel Conner could have traveled rather than coming over the massive south breakwater.  Not only those who believed Scott guilty but also some who believed Scott innocent thought it possible that he was washed onto the site at another location and drifted to his resting spot.  They all were laboring under the belief that the CRS fills with water at every high tide, and the December 5 field trip busted that myth.

The NOAA Richmond 9414863 was down on December 5, 2005, so I calculated the water levels by using the San Francisco 9414290 station and applying the corrections used to calculate the 2005 predictions:
2005 NOAA Tide Predictions: Chevron Oil Company Pier, Richmond

(Reference station: San Francisco, Corrections Applied: Times: High +0 hr. 24 min., Low +0 hr. 38 min., Heights: High *1.04, Low *0.98)

13:24 + 24 = 13:48; 5.73 * 1.04 = 5.96

13:30 + 24 = 13:54

9414290 20051205 13:18 6.08 5.69     13:42   5.92

9414290 20051205 13:24 6.08 5.73    13:48   5.96
9414290 20051205 13:30 6.09 5.73    13:54   5.96
The NOAA predicted that the Richmond station's HH would come in at 1:53 at a height of 6.3 feet
9414290 20051205 13:36 6.08 5.72    14:00    5.95
9414290 20051205 13:42 6.07 5.71    14:06    5.94

You can see from the above data that the water level came in lower than predicted and the water level doesn't drastically start to fall when the tide changes.  The difference for each 6 minutes is only .01 feet, which is a little more than a tenth of an inch.

BAAQMD Richmond Field Station reports the following wind conditions for December 5, 2005.

• 12 Noon:  speed 7 mph, gusts 17 mph, direction 53 degrees (NE)
• 1 p.m.:  speed 8 mph, gusts 16 mph, direction 36 degrees (NE)
• 2 p.m.: speed 7 mph, gusts 13 mph, direction 19 degrees (NNE)
• 3 p.m.: speed 6 mph, gusts 11 mph, direction 10 degrees (N)

My report on SII includes all the photographs and videos I took that day, but this one, started at 1:58 p.m., captured the site at peak high tide.  My comments are suited for the field trip's objective to show that no water channel existed from the SE, the East, the North, the West, or the SW to carry Conner to his resting place, but the panoramas of the whole site reveal that the site does not fill with water at each high tide.  The isolated puddles of water you see along the path are from the previous day's HH tide of 6.34 feet.

December 13, 2005 Field Trip - The CRS at 5.94 feet

In a trial, experts are called to explain complicated issues to the jurors.  However, it doesn't take an expert to know that the Conner Recovery Site on April 13, 2003 didn't look anything like People's 100.  In these next few articles, I'll publish photos and videos of the CRS at various water levels at or very near to the 5.88 feet experienced on April 13, 2003.  Most of these have been on SII for years, but it is time to refresh the memories of those who have already seen them, and present them new for those who haven't.

Water Levels 
April 13, 2003
6-minute verified water levels for Richmond station 9414863 for April 13, 2003.

9414863 20030413 10:00    5.44    5.86
9414863 20030413 10:06    5.43    5.88
9414863 20030413 10:12    5.41    5.88
9414863 20030413 10:18    5.38    5.83

December 13, 2005
The field trip on December 13, 2005 is a good place to start because I arrived at the CRS (I refer to it in the video as "the jetty") at 7:42 a.m., when the water level had already exceeded the 5.88 ft recorded and verified on April 13, 2003.  As I approached the site from the same position that People's 100 was taken, I used my JVC camcorder to capture the entire site on a video.  

The Richmond 9414863 station was down on December 13, so I had to calculate water levels from the San Francisco 9414290 station using the formula NOAA used to calculate the 2005 predictions:


2005 NOAA Tide Predictions: Chevron Oil Company Pier, Richmond

(Reference station: San Francisco, Corrections Applied: Times: High +0 hr. 24 min., Low +0 hr. 38 min., Heights: High *1.04, Low *0.98)

Using San Francisco's verified 6-minute water level data, I added 24 minutes to San Francisco's times and multiplied by 1.04 to calculate the water level:  7:18 + 24 = 7:42; 5.71 * 1.04 = 5.94.

9414290 20051213 07:12    5.67    5.62         7:36  5.84   

9414290 20051213 07:18    5.76    5.71         7:42  5.94

                                                                        7:43  5.94

                                                                        7:47  5.94

9414290 20051213 07:24    5.83    5.71         7:48  5.94

The difference between 5.94 and 5.88 is about 3/4 of an inch.

January 10, 2004
On January 10, 2004, Distaso, Harris, and Grogan arrived at the CRS at 12:44 and left at 1:15. The 6-minute verified water level data for Richmond shows that the HH tide peaked at 1:00 at a water level of 6.39 feet.

9414863 20040110 12:42    6.20    6.37
9414863 20040110 12:48    6.20    6.37
9414863 20040110 12:54    6.20    6.37
9414863 20040110 13:00    6.20    6.39
9414863 20040110 13:06    6.19    6.38
9414863 20040110 13:12    6.17    6.36
9414863 20040110 13:18    6.15    6.35

Comparison
April 13, 2003:  5.88 feet
Dec 13, 2005:   5.94 feet
Jan 10, 2004:    6.39 feet

It doesn't take an expert to know that the water level on December 13,2005 is representative of the water level on April 13,2003, NOT the water level on Jan 10, 2004.

Wind Conditions
The wind conditions on April 13, 2003 were quite gusty, but on both January 10, 2004 and December 13, 2005 the winds were calm.  I'm using the wind conditions as reported by the BAAQMD, which has a monitoring station at the UC Berkeley Richmond Field Station.  BAAQMD does not adjust for DST, so we have to remember to add one hour to the times for April. BAAQMD provides hourly readings, with maximum gusts and wind direction in degrees (convert to Cardinal directions).

April 13, 2003
High tide peaked at 10:06-10:12 a.m.
9:00 a.m.:  speed 11 mph; gusts 18 mph; direction 186 degrees (South)
10:00 a.m.:  speed 14 mph; gusts 23 mph; direction 180 degrees (South)
11:00 a.m.:  speed 14 mph; gusts 23 mph; direction 169 degrees (South)

January 10, 2003
High tide peaked at 1:00 p.m.
12:00 Noon: speed 7 mph; gusts 14 mph; direction 68 degrees (ENE)
1:00 p.m.: speed 7 mph; gusts 14 mph; direction 82 degrees (East)
2:00 p.m.: speed 6 mph; gusts 11 mph; direction 90 degrees (East)

December 13, 2005
Time of video 7:42 a.m.
7:00 a.m.:  speed 7 mph; gusts 10 mph; direction 346 degrees (NNW)
8:00 a.m.:  speed 5 mph; gusts 9 mph; direction 342 degrees (NNW)

December 13 and January 10 are nearly identical in wind speed and gusts.  Other field trips I've taken captured the site at wind conditions much nearer to April 13, 2003, and those will be reviewed in the upcoming days.

People's 100 compared to December 13, 2005
First, a look again at People's 100, with it's 6.39 feet verified water level.  The photograph was taken at the point where the beach leads onto the mudflat.

The video taken on December 13, 2005, beginning at 7:42 a.m., with a calculated water level of 5.94 feet, higher than the 5.88 feet water level verified for April 13, 2003.  The little puddles you see on the path are from the previous day's HH tide of 6.79 feet.  The HH tide on the 13th would peak out at 6.74 feet at 9:30 a.m.  It's quite apparent that the difference between a 5.94 water level and a 6.39 water level is very significant.  Using People's 100 to represent the CRS on the day Conner was found amounts to fraud.  

For more videos and pictures of this December 13, 2005 field trip, please visit SII at this link.