The normal thickness of the uterine wall during pregnancy

In his trial testimony, Dr. Brian Peterson said this about Laci's uterus as he observed it during the autopsy.

PETERSON: Sure. The uterus, in the first place, from the lowest portion of the uterus where it connects to the vagina, to the uppermost portion, the fundus, measured 23 centimeters. That would be roughly ten inches. As I said, normally, a uterus in the non-pregnant state may be the size of a golf ball. So an inch and a half or so. In greatest dimension, this is substantially larger. In the non-pregnant state, the uterus is almost solid muscle. There is obviously a cavity on the inside of it. But just to feel it, to make a section across, it is a relatively solid muscle. This uterus was markedly thin. The thickest, and I measured the wall of the uterus in several locations. The thickest was two millimeters, very small, all the way to nothing. Up near the top of the uterus it actually been, to my eye, abraded, and was open. So up there there was no wall. So the thickness of the wall ranged from nothing to two millimeters. So, in summary, what we have is a uterus that's much larger than a normal, non-pregnant uterus. The wall is much thinner. And as I put those two things together, I determined that that had been a pregnant uterus.

And then later he said,

PETERSON: Well, in terms of why it was the uterus there, perhaps, and other organs weren't, smooth muscle organs like the uterus in a woman, and the prostate gland in a man, tend to be relatively protected down in the pelvis, relatively resistant to degradation. So oftentimes there could be a lot of other parts missing, we'll still have that to help us determine the sex of the person. I guess that would be the main forensic significance. As I said, my other conclusion, based on the uterus, because it was enlarged and was thin, it had been pregnant. Now, at the point that I got this body, there was nothing left in the uterus. So there was no baby in there. There was no placenta in there. But the uterus remained enlarged from having been pregnant.

What he does not say is how thick a pregnant uterus normally is, especially at 32-33 weeks, Laci's stage of pregnancy on December 23, 2002.  The Defense team, and subsequently the jury, had no way to digest the information that the uterus wall was thin, 2mm at the thickest, because it had nothing to compare it to. 

I found a 1998 study that provides the information the Jury needed to draw a correct conclusion about the thinness of the uterine wall.  "Myometrial Thickness in Pregnancy: Longitidunal Sonographic Study",  is a study using ultrasound to measure the thickness of the uterine wall in 28 patients at different times during the course of their pregnancies.  These were normal pregnancies.  No difference was noted between women in their first pregnancy or in multiple pregnancies.  Laci was in her first pregnancy.  Average age of the women was 28 years, with the range from 19 to 41 years.  Laci was 27 years old.

Figure 3

Uterine wall thickness (in mm) during pregnancy. The continuous line represents the mean and the dashed lines represent the upper and lower 95% confidence intervals.  A, Anterior lower segment; B, mid-anterior wall; C, fundal wall; D, posterior wall; E, right wall; F, left wall. 

 

 

Click on the chart to enlarge it.  If you still have trouble reading it, here's a summary in data form. 

A:  7.4 mm with a standard deviation of 1.8 mm
B:  9.13 mm with a standard deviation of 1.6 mm
C:  9.48 mm with a standard deviation of 1.5 mm
D:  10.06 mm with a standard deviation of 1.9 mm
E:  8.95 mm with a standard deviation of 1.6 mm
F:  9.05 mm with a standard deviation of 1.5 mm

There's a substantial difference between the thickness of a normal uterine wall during pregnancy, and the 0-2 mm thickness of Laci's.

Dr. Peterson should have provided this information in his autopsy report, and Mark Geragos should have consulted an expert to see what it meant.  If it makes a difference in Scott's favor, as I suspect it does, Scott was entitled to have that information presented to the jury. 

If Dr. Peterson wasn't familiar with the subject, he should have done some research.  He had time between when he did the autopsy and he completed his report. 

The debris line revisited

There's been a good healthy conversation going at George Barwood's facebook group https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/ScottPetersonOpen/ about debris lines.  If you have not signed up for that group, I suggest you do.

One member saw the photo of People's 100, with all the water on the mudflat (Conner Recovery Site) and wondered if Conner could have come in from the North and then floated to where he was found, explaining why he was above (or North) of the debris line.  This question had been asked before by one of Scott's supporters who had been told by a friend that the mudflat floods at high tide.   

I addressed this issue on my December 5, 2004 Field Trip to the Conner Site.  The plain and simple truth is a 5.88 tide just does not produce the water on the mudflat that a 6.39 tide does.  You can go to my Field Trip for that day and see that there just is no channel of water, from any direction, that could have brought Conner to his resting place.  None.  If you do not wish to go through the entire page, these 2 pictures should settle it.  The balloons represent the approximate place where Conner was found.  Click each of the photos to enlarge.

12-5-04, 5.85 feet

12-5-04, 5.95 feet

Moreover, a 6.39 high tide is a rarity on the mudflat.  Here are the statistics for the period from December 24, 2002 to April 14, 2003:

217 high tides recorded

46 high tides (21%) at or above 6.05 feet

33 high tides (15%) at or above 6.39 feet

The high tide on April 13, 2003 was only 5.88 feet.  How could anyone possibly look at these statistics and not call Distaso a blatant liar. 

Now to deal with the question of whether Conner could have floated to where he was found from the North.  No he could not have.  The water level simply wasn't high enough on April 13, 2003.  But for those who insist on believe People's 100 depicts the Conner Site as it looked on April 13, 2003, in spite of the abundance of evidence that it does not, this information should disabuse you of the notion that Conner could have washed or floated from the North to his resting place.  Yes, that's right.  Even in tides as high as 6.39, he would not have washed or floated from the North. It just could not happen.

I made a Field Trip to the Conner Site in August 2009 with a couple of friends.  We wanted to see what happens to debris lines as the tide gets higher and higher during a spring tide -- if heavier/larger objects would stay with the lighter/smaller objects.  And we also wanted to see if objects could wash or float from the North to the South. 

We scheduled the trip at the beginning of a Spring tide.  The tides follow a pattern of increasing daily in height, then decreasing daily in height.  Spring tides are when the gravitational pull is the highest and thus the tides reach their highest levels.  Our plan was to visit the Site, lay down some debris among and in front of the rocks in the breakwater, stay until the debris line had formed, and then return the next day to photograph the debris line, as we had other sites to visit and it would be quite late before the water receded enough for us to photograph the debris line.  The high tide on the 15th peaked at 6.47 feet, above the 6.39 high tide depicted in People's 100.

Here are the debris lines we observed on those days. 

 

12th -- we found this debris line already in place.  Tide peaked at 6.033. 

 

 

 

13th -- debris line formed from all of the seaweed from the 12th plus the objects we laid down.  Tide peaked at 6.132.  It formed a continuous line, with large/heavy objects right in with the small/light objects.  

 

We placed a big stick to mark approximate location Conner rested, and measured the distance to the debris line to be 28".

14th -- tide peaked at 6.26.  Debris line reached the Conner marker.  Large/heavy and small/light debris form one continuous line.   

15th -- tide peaked at 6.47, and debris line was North of the path, along the ridge that separates the North from the South. 

 

It seems obvious to me that none of this debris washed or floated in from the North. 

 

 

Distaso's scorn showed his ignorance

Distaso, in his rebuttal closing argument, scorned the notion that Deanna Renfro only got $20 for a very expensive Croton watch.  

But first he made a total fool of himself with this statement:  "They brought in this pawn slip from Deanna Renfro, where supposedly she, does say brand Croton? I'm looking for a second. Wait a minute. It's not even a Croton watch. The brand name is, Croton on this pawn slip."  

Yes, Mr. Distaso, it was indeed a Croton watch.  Croton is given for the brand and Croton is given for the make -- how many times does it have to say Croton for it to be a Croton watch?

Then he said: "The reserve is 750 bucks. Look at it.  It's a nice gold diamond watch.  Now, I know you don't get a lot of money when you pawn things, but you get better than twenty bucks on 750."  

Pawnshops typically pay about 10% of the resale value of an item.  $20 would be 10% of $200.00.  Was that reasonable for a $750 watch?  Yes, because $750 is the assessed value of the watch, but resale value is something entirely different -- that depends entirely on market demands.  Scott and Laci offered this item twice on Ebay, during the Christmas shopping season, and the highest bid was $100.00.  Scott and Laci chose not to sell the watch for the current resale value of $100.  To make the anticipated profit on the item, The Pawn Shop would have to sell it at $200, more than twice the highest Ebay bid.  

As for the scratches on the watch -- that's evidence that Laci struggled with her abductors. 

It's been a long time and much has happened

Yes, indeed, much has happened.  In April, after many weeks of discomfort and suffering, I was diagnosed with congestive heart failure.  I will not relate all the details but I was told that I had but about 6 more months to live, and those 6 months would be filled with increasing pain and decreasing mobility.  My heart was pumping at about 25%.  On May 1, I had open heart surgery to replace the faulty aorta valve and to do some repair to my ascending aorta.  My recovery has been miraculous, much faster and much more complete than expected.  I have indeed been given a new lease on life, for which I am very grateful.

The same cannot be said for our dear friend, Jackie Peterson.  Her years-long battle came to an end on October 2nd.  Thankfully, the family enjoyed some measure of privacy before an uncaring and hateful person leaked it to an uncaring and hateful media.  As a person with faith in God and knowing there is an afterlife and Jackie is enjoying a sweet rest from her troubles, I have absolute confidence that she will do what she can on the other side of the veil to help correct her son's wrongful conviction.  I know her reunion with Laci and Conner was truly joyous.  And with her parents, and other loved ones.

And there is a new kid on the block -- someone that you've not likely seen before posting the questions that plague him about this case.  He's not certain Scott is innocent, but he is very uncomfortable with the case against him.  You can find George Barwood at https://www.facebook.com/groups/ScottPetersonOpen/.  I have not signed up because you've all heard what I have to say, and if I have anything more to add, I will say it here.  But do check him out and join in the discussion.

What you will never see on this blog . . .

Every once in a while a naysayer makes some comment here or on the Scott Peterson, Truth be Told Facebook page, that demands answers to certain questions which would require the disclosure of new evidence and new witnesses.

Let me make one thing very clear.  I will never identify new evidence and new witnesses on this blog or anywhere else on the internet.  That would be the stupidest, most foolish, and blatantly irresponsible thing I could do.  Evidence must be protected to be preserved; witnesses must be protected against intimidation and contamination.

What I and others do is discuss the exonerating evidence that was readily available for the first trial but was not used. Evidence that is readily available to the general public, and which does not require much more than a 5th grade education to obtain.

We discuss witnesses that have already made themselves known but were ignored by the MPD, and for some strange reason were not called as witnesses by the Defense.

We discuss evidence, again easily available even to the general public, that the alibis of the burglars are not reliable, indeed outright lies.  This is evidence that should have been discovered by the Defense in preparation for the 1st trial, but wasn't.

We discuss several items of evidence, facts and measurements that were recorded, but overlooked by all of the experts; deal-breaking evidence.

We discuss evidence that was presented at the trial but was ignored by the jury.

If through our research we discover new witnesses or new evidence, it's certainly not our place to make that public, and we wouldn't do so.  I'm not saying we have, but if we have, we'll never say so.

As lay people, we are not equipped to carry on private investigations to discover new evidence or new witnesses.  That is the purview of the appellate attorneys and the private investigators they hire.  And from all previous indications, the appellate attorneys are going to keep everything very close to the vest.  So whatever new evidence and new witnesses are discovered will only be revealed at the very last minute.

Naysayers are not going to accept this explanation, dismissing it as just an excuse for not having every answer to every question, suggesting that there will be no answers to those questions because Scott is guilty.

Reasonable people, however, will understand that this is a process that must be governed by common sense and discretion.

We are still years away from the CA Supreme Court decision, and that deals only with the trial record. The habeas appeal, which will introduce new evidence and new witnesses, will not even begin until after the CA Supreme Court has made its decision.  That's just the way it works -- a tediously slow process.

More on Nancy Grace's "re-investigation"

There is a transcript available for last Friday night's show.  Reviewing that transcript, I noticed Grace mentions her extensive coverage of the case.  I know that she was a daily guest and/or co-host on Larry King Live commenting on the show, but was shocked to see these claims by her:

GRACE: Being in that courtroom in Redwood City -- I was out in California for I don`t even know how long anymore, months, covering the trial. And I saw jurors come and go. That jury was like a revolving door. I watched everything that happened in the courtroom, every nuance, every move a juror or a witness or the defendant, Scott Peterson, or his lawyer would make.

What?  Nancy Grace was every day in the courtroom, saw every nuance, every move anyone made?  I attended the trial every day, except for the first 2 weeks or so of August when I was recovering from the stroke.  I didn't get into the courtroom every day, but I was there every day to get a lottery ticket hoping to get in.  Several of the other frequent attenders were avid Nancy Grace fans, and it was a very big deal the few days that she was there.  She was very amicable, friendly, talked to anyone that wished to talk, graciously mingling with the trial watchers.  In fact, I was surprised at how gracious a personality she is in person.  But she simply was not there every day.  And the trial was not televised.  What she saw every day was the media coverage, with a few days of personal attendance.

Grace talks about her experience when Sharon testified during the penalty phase.  Grace may well have been in the courtroom that day -- I don't remember.

GRACE: I was sitting in the very back of the courtroom. And I finally had taken off my backpack and set it on the pew and was sitting on top of it so I could see Sharon Rocha. And now I wish I hadn`t -- I hadn`t seen it because I will always remember her raw grief when she described those bones in the coffin of her child, Laci, holding her grandson in death. And that is how they were buried.
And then everyone just looked over at Scott Peterson, and he looked as if Sharon Rocha were talking about somebody he had never met. He had absolutely a blank expression on his face. I will never forget it as long as I live.

However, Grace is not much taller than I am.  And you could not be sitting on the back row, even sitting on a backpack, and see Scott Peterson's face.  Not even remotely possible.  The jurors of course could see him, as could Sharon as she testified.  The people sitting in the family rows on the DA/Rocha side of the courtroom, those sitting in the very first seats, would have been able to see a side-view.  But by the time you get to the public section on that side, you could not see his face -- and Grace was on the very back row of the courthouse.  And if she was sitting on the defense side of the courtroom, she couldn't have seen his face at all.

Grace's lack of honesty is quite alarming because a lot of people got much of the information they had on this case from Grace -- as they do about many other cases.  She appears to feel no obligation to accurately and objectively report the facts of the case.

Nancy Grace -- true to form!

Nancy Grace was true to form last night -- big on opinion and misinformation, short on real facts.  

Opinion -- okay, we get it, Grace has a manual for how people should obey when a loved one goes missing, and anyone that fails to act accordingly is guilty.  However, it would be nice for any "investigation" to actually include some facts.

Misinformation -- what she gave last night is particularly inexcusable.  She has staff to fact-check things for her.  Unfortunately, we don't have the benefit of a transcript of the show, so we have to rely on what people recorded as they listened.  Most of the inaccuracies are simply instances of exaggerating the truth.  But why is it necessary to exaggerate the truth?  Why isn't the truth good enough all by itself?  Is that the way she got all those convictions, by exaggerating the truth?

Laci was just about to give birth - the delivery of her unborn son Conner was imminent.  Laci was 32 or 33 weeks pregnant on December 23.  Her original due date was February 10.  So she had 7 weeks remaining.   

There was a big get together planned for that evening and she had worked so hard on it - her whole family was coming.  The get-together was at Sharon's, it was a small get-together, the whole family wasn't coming, and Laci's only responsibility was to bring whipped cream, and she was only asked to do that at the last minute.  Laci was hosting a brunch on Christmas Day and was going to serve french toast.  

It was the night of Laci’s vigil and he was leaving this preposterous message to Amber Frey about where he was on vacation or out of town or some lie and it wasn’t just one – it was call after call after call.  This is the record of phone calls between Scott and Amber on December 31.  

11:35 a.m. Scott Cell 2 called Amber <1 min="min">

11:42 a.m. Amber called Scott Cell 2 <5 min="min">

2:59 p.m. Amber called Scott Cell 2 <2 min="min">

3:05 p.m. Scott Cell 2 called Amber <2 min="min"> 195D

4:18 p.m. Scott Cell 2 called Amber <4 min="min"> 195E

4:20 p.m. Scott Cell 2 called Amber <1 min="min"> 195F

The body of her baby, Conner, there was only 24 hours difference in them washing ashore – I remember that the pedestrian out walking his dog as I recall saw little Conner and thought it was a baby doll  it was so perfect.   There is no reference at all to Conner looking like a baby doll in Looby's testimony.  Dr. Peterson's descriptions of the babies decomposed condition would hardly fit the "so perfect" description.  Did Grace ever see any of those autopsy photos?  In fact, Looby's wife didn't even recognize Conner as a baby at first. 

If Scott Peterson had really been looking for his wife why would he be arrested enroute to Mexico with his hair died another color, false i.d., thousands in cash.  He was set to go, set to leave the jurisdiction.  He had survival gear with him he was headed to Mexico and planned a life there.  Scott was not "enroute to Mexico."  He was living in San Diego, which has a historic reality of being next door to Mexico.  What a great life that would be living on "survival gear" in Mexico.  Apparently Grace isn't aware that Scott was in Mexico in January, and was told by Ted Rowlands that an arrest was imminent, and yet Scott returned to Modesto.  She also must be unaware that the bodies were found on Sunday and Monday and was all over the news, but Scott made no attempt to escape to Mexico or anywhere else during that week while the police waited for the bodies to be ID'd.  

Peterson and his whole camp came into the game ya know snake pit because they had a reason to lie.  And that is something that I’ve long argued to juries, when I assess a case, I look at the potential witnesses to determine their credibility.  What if anything do they have to win or lose based on the outcome of the trial.  Many of them have nothing to gain or to lose, for instance the police, the crime lab analysts, they’re not going to get a raise or a promotion if there’s a conviction.  They’ll be on to the next case the next week.  But Scott Peterson and his family had a lot to lose based on the outcome of the trial.  Well, duh, of course Scott and his family had a lot to lose based on the outcome of the trial -- his whole life.  Grace's reasoning seems to be that no defendant, or anyone testifying on his behalf, can be believed because they have something to lose.  I didn't realize her anti-defendant bias was that radical.  Even more radical is her statement that no one from the prosecution side has anything to gain.  Of course the MPD had something to gain from a conviction and a lot to lose from an acquittal - their reputations.  They had contributed significantly to making this a national media case, and everyone would know exactly who to blame if the case wasn't strong enough to convict.  They would have had to face a very angry Modesto community on their arrival home.  Same with the DAs.  

Furthermore, a lot of people did gain from Scott's conviction -- lots of books sold that wouldn't have had a market if he had been acquitted.  And there were some promotions, according to this ModBee article:

Rick Distaso: Appointed to be a Superior Court Judge in June 2005.
Dave Harris: Promoted to chief deputy district attorney in fall 2005
Birgit Fladager: Elected as District Attorney in June 2006

Allen Brocchini:  promoted to sergeant, leaving investigative services for the operations division
Joh Buehler:   promoted to sergeant, leaving investigative services for the operations division
Craig Grogan: Reassigned to investigate cold cases

Scott referred to Laci in the past tense.  And so did everyone else.

GERAGOS: Now, one of the things that you specifically had mentioned, I think it was you, in one of the interviews that Scott had referred to Laci in the past tense; is that correct?

GROGAN: Talking about the media interviews?

GERAGOS: Right.

GROGAN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. I'm looking at 14751. You got a call from a Marna Davis, who is a reporter from Sacramento, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And Marna Davis reported that she was a reporter from Sacramento who had spoken to Brent Rocha, and she thought it was odd that Brent Rocha had spoken about his sister in the past tense; is that correct?

GROGAN: That's what this tip says.

GERAGOS: And that she had interviewed Brent Rocha on the day after Christmas and he had referred to Laci in the past tense and she thought that was odd, correct?

GROGAN: That's what the tip says, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, did you, to the best of your knowledge, did anybody follow-up with this reporter, Marna Davis, to see what, what interview she had done with Brent Rocha where he had referred to Laci in the past tense?

GROGAN: No. That's the first I've seen that.

GERAGOS: Okay. That's in the, it is in the discovery in the tips line that comes in; isn't that correct?

GROGAN: It does have a Bates stamp number, so it should be in the discovery.

GERAGOS: Yeah. 14751, correct?

GROGAN: Correct, yes.

GERAGOS: Now, you've also seen a number of the, well, you've got one report here that is, I can't quite, it says page six of six. Is that 142?

GROGAN: I don't know.

GERAGOS: Okay. And is this an interview with Amy?

GROGAN: Yeah, it appears to be.

GERAGOS: You've got some quotation marks around something Amy said; is that correct?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: And this is a January 5th report? That you prepared?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Does Amy refer to Laci in the past tense on January 5th? In your quote?

GROGAN: Talking about, yeah, it's talking about jewelry and whether Laci would have set any aside or if it would all be in the jewelry box, and she said: Laci was not that way, she would have shared all of it.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you find that odd that Amy had spoken about Laci in the past tense?

GROGAN: At the time, no.

GERAGOS: Okay. I've got, you, there were also other interviews that were done on Larry King, on The Early Show, and Good Morning America. And in, you would periodically, I'm sorry, look at those interviews, as well, of the families, correct?

GROGAN: Actually, not very often. I didn't watch very much of the media in this. I was occasionally told about it.

GERAGOS: Okay. Were you aware that in an interview on The Early Show on December 30th that Sharon Rocha spoke about Laci in the past tense?

GROGAN: No.

GERAGOS: Were you aware that on Good Morning America, on December 27th, that Sharon Rocha spoke about Laci in the past tense?

FLADAGER: Your Honor, I would object as (inaudible).

JUDGE: I can't hear you, Ms. Fladager.

FLADAGER: I object to this, your Honor. The detective's indicated he's not watched these programs.

JUDGE: The objection's sustained.

GERAGOS: Did you do any, did you look at who other family members were speaking about the, about Laci on TV?

GROGAN: No. I rarely watched any media reports related to this case.

GERAGOS: Okay. If I were to show you, are you aware of how to obtain transcripts from the shows? Either by a Lexis search?

GROGAN: I know it can be done.

GERAGOS: If I were to tell you during the break to take a look at the Good Morning America transcript from December 27th, or The Early Show from December 30th, or the, specifically the Connie Chung Show, which I guess no longer exists, and they have family members speaking in the past tense; that in and of itself was really indicative of nothing, is it?

GROGAN: I don't know if it's indicative of nothing. Maybe it's when someone has decided that there's a possibility that Laci may not be coming back.

GERAGOS: Okay. As far as you know, it appears, at least, however, that virtually everybody who was close to her at one time or another in the media referred to Laci in the past tense within the first week; isn't that correct?

GROGAN: Based on the documents that you showed me, some of those people, if those quotes are correct, said things similar to that, yes.

Probably the biggest mistake Grace made is when she said Laci was found first, then the baby.  She obviously is not keen on details -- at least not on factual details.  Perhaps that's because she focuses so much on irrelevant, exaggerated, and incorrect details that she doesn't have any attention span left for reality. 

All in all, it was much ado about nothing -- a re-investigation that merely regurgitated old myths and misinformation.  No new evidence; no new insight.  Just the same ole, same ole.