Susan Powell has been missing for more than 10 days, and "the-husband-did-it" lynch mob is out in full force. This is not a defense of Josh Powell. I have no knowledge of his guilt or innocence.
What I do know is that he was suspected from the very beginning - no, I don't believe the lines the police give about persons of interest. It's just as intentionally deceptive as the smoke and mirrors used by magicians.
Where is the evidence of foul play in the house? or of a clean-up? or of drugs or poisons used to kill her? of her body being dragged out of the house? As a parent and grandparent, I know how notorious children are for tattle-taling, and they don't have to be intending to do it, either, they just mess up on the story, or say something unexpected in answer to a question (recall the balloon family escapade, not long ago?)
I assume there is no such evidence, and the 4 year old has said nothing incriminating towards his dad, or the dad would have been arrested.
What is it about these cases that compels otherwise decent human beings to turn with a vengeance on someone they don't even know? Oh, everyone justifies it by pointing out the behavior that is peculiar. And they justify it by claiming they want justice for the victim. In truth, they are no better than the persons who tried and convicted the innocent men and women of Salem Mass for witchcraft -- all because their behavior was a little peculiar. Posting a hateful, ugly, mean-spirited mobocratic message on a message forum or in the comments following an article is no less dangerous to our civilization, and no less anti-Christian and immoral.
Whatever happened to Susan Powell (and I still pray for her safe return), and no matter what the involvement or non-involvement by her husband, nothing justifies this hate-filled rush to judgment by the general public, before even one shred of evidence is produced.
"I'm afraid he may have something to do with it," is not the same as saying, "He did it, they just don't have the evidence to prove it."
How horribly unjust is that last statement? Think about it! How many people in America would be perfectly satisfied to take Josh Powell out to the nearest tree right now and hang him? Without one shred of evidence.
I wonder how many people want him to be guilty, to satisfy some voyeuristic need to see into the private relationships of other people. Are our own lives so boring?
If Josh Powell proves to be involved, everyone will justify their anti-Christian, mobocratic attitude towards him in these initial days. Even if he isn't involved, and proven not to be involved, I doubt that anyone will learn any lessons from this. We didn't seem to learn from Richard Jewell's witch-hunt, nor Elisabeth Smart's. In fact, I dare to say people were disappointed that Jewell was innocent, and that Smart was kidnapped by someone other than their suspect. As Nancy Grace is so prone to say, "they were the logical suspects," so no apologies and certainly no change of behavior required.
As a civilization, America is fast sinking into a cesspool.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
5th Anniversary of Scott's conviction - November 12
When I put up SII on December 26, 2003, I had hopes that truth and justice would prevail. If Scott was guilty, as millions thought he was, I wanted there to be real evidence, conclusive evidence.
I never saw such evidence. What was so convincing to so many millions of people just was not at all convincing to me. Scott Peterson was a total stranger to me. I had no vested interest in his innocence or his guilt. I just wanted evidence that he was indeed guilty. I am a proponent of the death penalty, and I am not a bit satisfied with the evidence that sent this man to death row. And I would not be satisfied with the evidence if he had gotten LWPP, or any other sentence.
But even beyond that, I've seen with my own eyes too many times -- that baby did not wash ashore. And that fact proves Scott Peterson is innocent.
It will be 7 years this Christmas Eve since Laci was abducted. Those who think Scott is guilty are confident they know what happened. Those of us who know he is innocent still search to find out the truth of what happened that day. Even though we may not be visible on public message boards like we were during the trial and the aftermath, does a day go by that we don't think about this case, don't wonder what in the world went wrong, what in the world can be done to correct this injustice?
I shall never forget what it was like standing outside that courthouse on November 12, 2004. I didn't get a seat in the courtroom that day, but I was right outside. It was surreal. The shouts and high-fives, the sign waving, the utter joy that these people felt.
There will yet be another day. A day when those same people who cheered at the verdict, not only those present at the courthouse but watching on television and listening on radio, all over the United States, and indeed, in many parts of the world -- a day when those same people will come face to face with the stark knowledge that an innocent man was convicted.
Hopefully, some of them will have the decency to hang their heads in shame.
But it will be a day of only muffled celebration, because with the joy of Scott's vindication will come the sorrow of Laci's friends and family (including Scott and his family) who must face yet another trial and having to learn the gruesome details of Laci's abduction and murder.
I have often said that the greatest injustice of a wrongful conviction is not to the innocent person convicted, but to the victim's family and dear friends who become so emotionally invested in the innocent person's conviction, only to be proven wrong. And then to have to go through it all over again. Some cannot get out of that emotional investment, and simply refuse to believe the convicted person is innocent, even when someone else is proven guilty. They rationalize that somehow, some way the innocent person convicted was involved.
It's much better to do it right the first time.
I know those of you who think Scott is guilty do believe it was done right the first time, but I don't. I've seen it with my own eyes too many times -- that baby did not wash ashore. That one fact proves Scott Peterson innocent.
----------------------------------------------
If you would like to respond to these comments, please visit The Justice Gang, and post your response on this thread. Registration is required. Or you can post your comment here.
I never saw such evidence. What was so convincing to so many millions of people just was not at all convincing to me. Scott Peterson was a total stranger to me. I had no vested interest in his innocence or his guilt. I just wanted evidence that he was indeed guilty. I am a proponent of the death penalty, and I am not a bit satisfied with the evidence that sent this man to death row. And I would not be satisfied with the evidence if he had gotten LWPP, or any other sentence.
But even beyond that, I've seen with my own eyes too many times -- that baby did not wash ashore. And that fact proves Scott Peterson is innocent.
It will be 7 years this Christmas Eve since Laci was abducted. Those who think Scott is guilty are confident they know what happened. Those of us who know he is innocent still search to find out the truth of what happened that day. Even though we may not be visible on public message boards like we were during the trial and the aftermath, does a day go by that we don't think about this case, don't wonder what in the world went wrong, what in the world can be done to correct this injustice?
I shall never forget what it was like standing outside that courthouse on November 12, 2004. I didn't get a seat in the courtroom that day, but I was right outside. It was surreal. The shouts and high-fives, the sign waving, the utter joy that these people felt.
There will yet be another day. A day when those same people who cheered at the verdict, not only those present at the courthouse but watching on television and listening on radio, all over the United States, and indeed, in many parts of the world -- a day when those same people will come face to face with the stark knowledge that an innocent man was convicted.
Hopefully, some of them will have the decency to hang their heads in shame.
But it will be a day of only muffled celebration, because with the joy of Scott's vindication will come the sorrow of Laci's friends and family (including Scott and his family) who must face yet another trial and having to learn the gruesome details of Laci's abduction and murder.
I have often said that the greatest injustice of a wrongful conviction is not to the innocent person convicted, but to the victim's family and dear friends who become so emotionally invested in the innocent person's conviction, only to be proven wrong. And then to have to go through it all over again. Some cannot get out of that emotional investment, and simply refuse to believe the convicted person is innocent, even when someone else is proven guilty. They rationalize that somehow, some way the innocent person convicted was involved.
It's much better to do it right the first time.
I know those of you who think Scott is guilty do believe it was done right the first time, but I don't. I've seen it with my own eyes too many times -- that baby did not wash ashore. That one fact proves Scott Peterson innocent.
----------------------------------------------
If you would like to respond to these comments, please visit The Justice Gang, and post your response on this thread. Registration is required. Or you can post your comment here.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
The Justice Gang
I've created a new "Open Discussion" forum on ProBoard called The Justice Gang. I hope all of our "friends" and "foes" from previous forums will join us for some spirited debate on Scott's case, as well as other subjects of interest. All opinions are welcome.
Please read the Posting Rules and Guidelines before you start posting.
Hope to see you all there.
We will have new articles on this blog when something new develops in Scott's case.
Please read the Posting Rules and Guidelines before you start posting.
Hope to see you all there.
We will have new articles on this blog when something new develops in Scott's case.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Laci's Story: Laci Peterson reveals her own story from beyond the grave
Another book about Laci Peterson has hit the market -- a 33 pager published by Rose Dog Books and selling for just $5 if you get the digital download version.
The author is anonymously called the Scribe, who according to the Publisher is a very old lady, and alleges that she has had visions since childhood. When Laci disappeared, she had visions of Laci, but tried to ignore them. Ultimately, Laci prevailed upon her to write her (Laci's) story.
The story Laci tells blatantly says Scott is innocent and 3 other men are guilty, but provides absolutely no details at all to help uncover the identity of these three men or produce evidence to prove they were the ones responsible for Laci's death and subsequent burial in the Bay.
Scribe does say Laci's abduction was a case of mistaken identity, but she does not say who she was mistaken for, except that she was called by the name "Missy Reporter." And Scribe indicates the 3 men expected to get $25,000 for this "Missy Reporter."
A few of the details are questionable. Scribe says Laci wore the same clothes she wore the night before to go for her walk in the park (those weren't exactly dog-walking clothes), and was abducted by 2 men in a van in the park. I'm not quite sure how that van could be driving in the park, but that is what she says. McKenzie seems to be quite at ease with what is going on, jumps into the van to be with Laci, but the two men shove him out a little bit later, in a small puddle of water, which presumably is how his leash got dirty. The other detail that is questionable is that the van is a white van painted brown with a paint that washes away in a car wash, which they go to right after abducting her.
Is the Scribe sincerely and honestly relating visions she received about Laci? Or is she pulling a scam?
Regardless, there is absolutely nothing in the story that can prove Scott Peterson innocent or anyone else guilty.
The author is anonymously called the Scribe, who according to the Publisher is a very old lady, and alleges that she has had visions since childhood. When Laci disappeared, she had visions of Laci, but tried to ignore them. Ultimately, Laci prevailed upon her to write her (Laci's) story.
The story Laci tells blatantly says Scott is innocent and 3 other men are guilty, but provides absolutely no details at all to help uncover the identity of these three men or produce evidence to prove they were the ones responsible for Laci's death and subsequent burial in the Bay.
Scribe does say Laci's abduction was a case of mistaken identity, but she does not say who she was mistaken for, except that she was called by the name "Missy Reporter." And Scribe indicates the 3 men expected to get $25,000 for this "Missy Reporter."
A few of the details are questionable. Scribe says Laci wore the same clothes she wore the night before to go for her walk in the park (those weren't exactly dog-walking clothes), and was abducted by 2 men in a van in the park. I'm not quite sure how that van could be driving in the park, but that is what she says. McKenzie seems to be quite at ease with what is going on, jumps into the van to be with Laci, but the two men shove him out a little bit later, in a small puddle of water, which presumably is how his leash got dirty. The other detail that is questionable is that the van is a white van painted brown with a paint that washes away in a car wash, which they go to right after abducting her.
Is the Scribe sincerely and honestly relating visions she received about Laci? Or is she pulling a scam?
Regardless, there is absolutely nothing in the story that can prove Scott Peterson innocent or anyone else guilty.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
More on the Cheng Controversy
If you followed the exchange of comments between myself and WAH, you know that he has defended Cheng by assuming that Cheng meant 40 kilometers, not 40 knots when describing the wind on April 12, 2003. WAH pointed out that the abbreviation for knots is kn, and the abbreviation for kilometers is km, and so a typo explains the mistake.
Is it possible that a simple typographical error could have caused the mistake? That's a question that most definitely must be answered, so I did some research.
Court Reporters use a stenotype machine, which does not have a regular typewriter/computer keyboard. I found a picture of the machine and a layout of its keys. I was quite amazed to find that the keys do not include the "m" and the "n".
The article explained that different theories are used to form the words, and the Court Reporters can also create their own shorthand for commonly used words.
However, with the "m" and the "n" being absent from the keyboard, the abbreviations "kn" and "km" could not be used in those forms. To form the abbreviation kn, the court reporter has to key K for the inital K and PB for the final n. To form the abbreviation km, the court reporter has to key K for the initial K and PL for the final m.
I've included a visual from a website, which incidentally is the same article that appears under this subject on Wikipedia, Answers.com, and a couple other websites. The article gives much more information.
If you wonder why some letters appear twice on the keyboard, it's because the keys to the left of the * are used to generate initial consonants, and the keys to the right are used for final consonants.
WAH, if you have information that shows a stenotype machine that does have the m and n keys, please post it.
Is it possible that a simple typographical error could have caused the mistake? That's a question that most definitely must be answered, so I did some research.
Court Reporters use a stenotype machine, which does not have a regular typewriter/computer keyboard. I found a picture of the machine and a layout of its keys. I was quite amazed to find that the keys do not include the "m" and the "n".
The article explained that different theories are used to form the words, and the Court Reporters can also create their own shorthand for commonly used words.
However, with the "m" and the "n" being absent from the keyboard, the abbreviations "kn" and "km" could not be used in those forms. To form the abbreviation kn, the court reporter has to key K for the inital K and PB for the final n. To form the abbreviation km, the court reporter has to key K for the initial K and PL for the final m.
I've included a visual from a website, which incidentally is the same article that appears under this subject on Wikipedia, Answers.com, and a couple other websites. The article gives much more information.
If you wonder why some letters appear twice on the keyboard, it's because the keys to the left of the * are used to generate initial consonants, and the keys to the right are used for final consonants.
WAH, if you have information that shows a stenotype machine that does have the m and n keys, please post it.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Cheng for Dummies
One of our frequent commenters, Wearhing a Halo (WAH), suggests that I have misunderstood Dr. Cheng's testimony. To quote from his comment:
"At best Dr. Cheng mispoke and at worst Dr. Cheng was misquoted by the court reporter/transcriber when Dr. Cheng said '40 knots (kn)'. It is my contention is that Dr. Cheng meant "40 kilometers (km)". 40 km fits with the data where 40 kn does not. If Dr. Cheng did state 40 kn . . ."
So, let's discuss this possibility.
First, let's start by reviewing what Cheng actually said:
"I felt that was, wow, quite a wind event during that day. I really recall in my own mind, you can see now the scientific records showed us now during that particular period of time, in the morning, or starting from the midnight of the midnight April 11th, or early morning of April 12th, you can see wind exceeded 40 knots. 40 knots, wind exceeded. Also a sustained wind for long period of time, subsided slightly, but still continued on for another good twelve, eighteen hours with wind average around twenty knots per hour."
Cheng actually repeated 40 knots. Now, sometimes he did misspeak, but then corrected himself. He repeated 40 knots, to emphasize it, in my opinion, not to correct it.
Second, the transcript spells out the word knots; the abbreviation kn is not used, so it's not a simple case of the Court Reporter mishearing or making a typo. Knots is a one syllable word; kilometers is a 4-syllable word. Knots doesn't sound anything like kilometers. I really don't think a Court Reporter could hear kilometers and record knots.
Third, when do Americans ever measure wind speed in kilometers? How many Americans even know what a kilometer is? Well, I checked, just to be sure, using a handy online converter.
40km per hour = 24.9 mph.
Yes, WAH, that significantly reduces the wind speed, as 40 knots per hour equals 46 mph. So this "wow, quite a wind event" has gone down from 46 mph to 24.9 mph.
But does that mean we then have to refigure the sustained winds for 12-18 hours of 20 knots per hour? 20 knots per hour which converts to 23 mph really should have been 20km per hour, which converts to 12.4 mph. I know people in the Bay Area can be really whimpy when it comes to wind events, but calling 12.4 mph winds a "wow, quite a wind event" is beyond whimpy.
But then we have the characterization by Distaso. Initial winds of 24.9 mph followed by sustained winds of 12.4 mph equals a "very violent storm" as Distaso called it in the State's Closing Argument? Talk about hyperbole.
WAH, I readily admit, 12.4 mph much better describes the "wow quite a wind event" on April 12, but does that really help the State's case? I don't think 12.4 mph winds qualify as a "wow, quite a wind event/very violent storm" for the Bay.
Keep talking, WAH. I'm sure Scott appreciates your efforts to clear up what Cheng really meant and to expose the truth about the storm as well as the hyperbole in Distaso's characterization. Let's see, I seem to recall that to intentionally misrepresent evidence is prosecutorial misconduct.
Any one have a larger petri dish handy?
"At best Dr. Cheng mispoke and at worst Dr. Cheng was misquoted by the court reporter/transcriber when Dr. Cheng said '40 knots (kn)'. It is my contention is that Dr. Cheng meant "40 kilometers (km)". 40 km fits with the data where 40 kn does not. If Dr. Cheng did state 40 kn . . ."
So, let's discuss this possibility.
First, let's start by reviewing what Cheng actually said:
"I felt that was, wow, quite a wind event during that day. I really recall in my own mind, you can see now the scientific records showed us now during that particular period of time, in the morning, or starting from the midnight of the midnight April 11th, or early morning of April 12th, you can see wind exceeded 40 knots. 40 knots, wind exceeded. Also a sustained wind for long period of time, subsided slightly, but still continued on for another good twelve, eighteen hours with wind average around twenty knots per hour."
Cheng actually repeated 40 knots. Now, sometimes he did misspeak, but then corrected himself. He repeated 40 knots, to emphasize it, in my opinion, not to correct it.
Second, the transcript spells out the word knots; the abbreviation kn is not used, so it's not a simple case of the Court Reporter mishearing or making a typo. Knots is a one syllable word; kilometers is a 4-syllable word. Knots doesn't sound anything like kilometers. I really don't think a Court Reporter could hear kilometers and record knots.
Third, when do Americans ever measure wind speed in kilometers? How many Americans even know what a kilometer is? Well, I checked, just to be sure, using a handy online converter.
40km per hour = 24.9 mph.
Yes, WAH, that significantly reduces the wind speed, as 40 knots per hour equals 46 mph. So this "wow, quite a wind event" has gone down from 46 mph to 24.9 mph.
But does that mean we then have to refigure the sustained winds for 12-18 hours of 20 knots per hour? 20 knots per hour which converts to 23 mph really should have been 20km per hour, which converts to 12.4 mph. I know people in the Bay Area can be really whimpy when it comes to wind events, but calling 12.4 mph winds a "wow, quite a wind event" is beyond whimpy.
But then we have the characterization by Distaso. Initial winds of 24.9 mph followed by sustained winds of 12.4 mph equals a "very violent storm" as Distaso called it in the State's Closing Argument? Talk about hyperbole.
WAH, I readily admit, 12.4 mph much better describes the "wow quite a wind event" on April 12, but does that really help the State's case? I don't think 12.4 mph winds qualify as a "wow, quite a wind event/very violent storm" for the Bay.
Keep talking, WAH. I'm sure Scott appreciates your efforts to clear up what Cheng really meant and to expose the truth about the storm as well as the hyperbole in Distaso's characterization. Let's see, I seem to recall that to intentionally misrepresent evidence is prosecutorial misconduct.
Any one have a larger petri dish handy?
Monday, June 15, 2009
SII temorarily unavailable
I am changing host providers for SII, and so it may be unavailable for a short period. We'll have it up again as quickly as possible.
Of course, the forum is hosted on the same site, so it may also be unavailable.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Of course, the forum is hosted on the same site, so it may also be unavailable.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)