Sharon Rocha validates Dr. March: It finally came back positive

I used to publish articles in a Constant Contact Newsletter before using this blog.  Since these are no longer available to the general public, I thought it would be wise to repeat some of them here.  This particular article was published on January 15, 2006, when the SII forum was still open.

As members of SII's bulletin board have perused Sharon Rocha's book, "For Laci," they have commented on various items of interest. One member noticed that Sharon validates Dr. March. If you remember, Dr. March testified that Conner did not die before December 29, and Laci's home pregnancy test on June 9, 2002, was part of the information he used to draw his conclusions. David Harris attempted to dispute the significance of the June 9 HPT. He succeeded, at least to the jurors, who gave March zero credibility. 

However, Sharon validates Dr. March's emphasis on the importance of the June 9 HPT. On page 59, she relates the conversation she had with Laci at 7 a.m. that Sunday morning. 

"I'm pregnant!" she said. "Mom, I'm pregnant! I can't believe it. I just took the test. I'm pregnant!" "It finally came back positive?" I said. "Ah-ha," she said, thrilled. "I'm pregnant." "That's great news, Laci," I said. "Congratulations!" 

Laci "just took the test" proves that she did in fact take it on Sunday morning. "Finally came back positive," proves she had taken previous tests that were negative. Dr. March was absolutely right. Sunday, June 9, was very important in establishing just how old Conner was when Laci disappeared.

 Another member of the SII forum, Carey-Ann Sandell, did an excellent two-part analysis of Dr. March's testimony from the perspective of a woman in Laci's situation, trying very hard to get pregnant.

Understanding the Importance of Dr. March's Testimony:  The "Trying to Get Pregnant" Culture 

Understanding the Importance of Dr. March's Testimony:  The Adjusted Due Date

Predicted tides for April 2011 compared to People's 100

 The following tidbits of information come from Tides and Water Levels produced by the NOAA, which is quite an excellent tutorial.  Perhaps attorneys who prosecuted this case should read it, so they know a little of the science behind tides.

• Tides are based on the lunar day, which is 24 hours and 50 minutes.  That's why you can't go to the San Francisco Bay the same time every day to observe a high tide or low tide -- you have to plan ahead.
• The moon has the largest affect on the tides, but the sun does play a role (especially at the vernal and autumnal equinoxes and winter and summer solstices).
• Neap tides coincide with the 1st Quarter and Last Quarter phases of the lunar cycle.
• Spring tides coincide with the New Moon and Full Moon phases.
• Spring tides not only produce higher high tides, but also lower low tides, creating a greater tidal range.
• The Bay has semi diurnal tides, with two unequal high tides (HH and H) and two unequal low tides (LL and L) each lunar day.

The NOAA publishes its tidal predictions based on the very predictable lunar and solar cycles -- meteorological factors (rain, snow, drought) are not used in the predictions because they cannot be predicted.  The meteorological effects on the tides are measured by NOAA and are represented in the preliminary and verified water level data -- they just are not included in predictions.  

The water level for the high tide on the morning of April 13, 2011 was predicted to reach 5.11' at 8:06 a.m. and hold steady through 8:18 a.m., dropping to only 5.10 at 8:24 a.m.  In the chart, the Accoustc data shows that the actual water level reached 5.16' at 8:06 a.m. and held mostly level, as 8.15' is only 1/8 of an inch lower than 5.16, but did peak at 5.17' at 8:30 a.m.  

Station Date            Time   Pred 6   Acoustc  Backup
DCP#:                                   1             1           2
Units:                                  Feet     Feet      Feet
Data%:  MLLW        Local  100.00  100.00  100.00  
Maximum:                             5.21    5.17      5.18  
Minimum:                              0.13    0.23    0.24  
------- -------- ----- ------- ------- ------- 

9414863 20110413 07:54    5.09    5.08    5.09

9414863 20110413 08:00    5.10    5.12    5.13

9414863 20110413 08:06    5.11    5.16    5.16

9414863 20110413 08:12    5.11    5.15    5.16

9414863 20110413 08:18    5.11    5.15    5.16

9414863 20110413 08:24    5.10    5.16    5.17

9414863 20110413 08:30    5.09    5.17    5.18

9414863 20110413 08:36    5.08    5.15    5.16

9414863 20110413 08:42    5.06    5.12    5.14

9414863 20110413 08:48    5.03    5.11    5.12

Here are the water levels critical to this case:

5.45' MHW (average of all H and HH tides)
5.88' water level from HH tide on morning of April 13, 2003
6.05' MHHW (average of only the HH tides)
6.39' water level for People's 100

As you can see, 5.11' (predicted) and 5.17' (Accoustc) are not anywhere near the 6.39' of People's 100; they aren't even close to the 6.05' MHHW; and even fall short of the 5.45' MHW.  So just how common is it to have high tides this low?  The answer is in this monthly plot for April 2011.  I included the last several days of March to get a more complete lunar cycle, as taken from calendar-365.com, which has a lot of other very interesting information, too.

You can see from the plot that only 5 HH tides of the whole period equal or exceed 6.39', and they are boxed in red.  So the real question is, Is it more likely for high tides to be at or below 5.11' or at or above 6.39' in the month of April?  

During the month of April 2011, there are 58 high tides.  We must include all high tides to determine the frequency of the 6.39' tide of People's 100 because Distaso did so in this broad statement in his Closing Argument: Remember that area where he came ashore is a tidal flat, so at high tide it's covered with water all the way.  

Only 20/58 or 34% of high tides in April 2011 are predicted to reach or exceed 5.45' MHW

Only 7/58 or 12% of high tides in April 2011 are predicted to reach or exceed 6.05' MHHW

Only 5/58 or 9% of high tides in April 2011 are predicted to reach or exceed 6.39' People's 100

26/58 or 45% of high tides in April 2011 are predicted to be at or below the 5.11' tide predicted for April 13, 2011

That plainly means that more than 5 times as many high tides in April 2011 are at or lower than 5.11' than at or above 6.39'.  That makes a 5.11' or lower tide 5 times more common than a 6.39' or higher tide.  The tide on April 1, 2011 actually peaked at 5.17', and the photos I posted yesterday prove that the site is definitely not under water at this water level.  

Lest you think April 2011 would be much different from April 2003, here is the verified water level vs.  predicted water level plot for April 2003.  The red + indicates the verified water level, and the blue line the predicted.  As you can see, only 4 of the high tides were predicted to reach 6.39' or higher (a 5th one made it with the help of local meteorological factors); and only 6 to reach 6.05' or higher.  Moreover, the storm surge that the State talked about so much didn't even raise the water level to the 6.05'.  

And here is the verified water level vs. Predicted plot for April 2004, showing the same pattern.

People's 100 was taken on January 10, 2004.  The month of January does traditionally produce higher tides than the month of April.  That's because January follows the winter solstice when the sun has the greatest effect on the tides, and April follows the vernal equinox, when the sun has the least effect.  Following are plots for January 2003, January 2004, and January 2011.

The Conner Recovery site simply is not "under water" at every high tide, and People's 100 does not represent what the site looked like on April 13, 2003.   

More evidence that People's 100 is a blatant lie - April 13, 2011

In his Opening Statement, Rick Distaso told the Jury:

Here's the location where Conner Peterson's body was found. There is a tidal flat. If you are at high tide, it's covered in water.  At low tide it's flat ground. You are going to see this is all tidal flat. There is a walking path here. There is nowhere to drive down. You can't drive a car down to this particular location. You can walk along the beach here, at low tide. Then low tide, you can walk out onto the flat. But high tide it's mostly covered in water.>>>>Here is where Conner's body was recovered. The reason that this is dark on this chart is because that's those, it's a tidal flat. That means it's land in low tide, it's water in high tide.>>>>The body is found behind the jetty right here in this particular tidal flat. Next picture. This is a picture [People's 100] that was taken later, not on the day Conner's body was find, was taken to show you what the tidal flat looks like at high tide. You can see the residue line is just barely exposed. Come down, there is no waves breaking over the jetty, but this entire flat is covered with water at about, I think it's about a foot and half, two feet deep. 

After he and Dave Harris solicited the same blatantly incorrect information from three witnesses -- Michael Looby, Tod Opdyke, and Brian Gard, none of which are experts on water levels at the Conner Recovery Site, or even frequent visitors to the site -- Distaso said in his Closing Argument:

Remember that area where he came ashore is a tidal flat, so at high tide it's covered with water all the way. At low tide it's ground. He came ashore on a heavy storm surge. 

I was again at the Conner Recovery site on April 13, 2011, the 8th anniversary.  The photos I took again prove how ridiculously stupid it is for anyone to believe that this site is "covered with water all the way" at "high tide."

I arrived at the site at 7:13 a.m. to view the high tide predicted for that morning.  Here are the predicted water levels compared to the preliminary water levels.  The Accoustc column is the one to pay attention to, as that has proven to be a very accurate representation of verified water levels.  The high tide was predicted to peak at 8:06 a.m. and hold steady at 5.11' until dropping a mere .01' by 8:24.  The actual water level was just a bit higher -- 5.17 is .06' or 3/4 of an inch higher than 5.11' -- and peaked a bit later, at 8:30.  However, the water level at 8:06, the projected peak high tide, was only .01' lower than the actual peak, and .01' is a mere 1/8 of an inch.

Station Date      Time  Pred 6 Acoustc  Backup
DCP#:                        1       1       2
Units:                    Feet    Feet    Feet
Data%:  MLLW     Local  100.00  100.00  100.00  
Maximum:                  5.21    5.17    5.18  
Minimum:                  0.13    0.23    0.24  
------- -------- ----- ------- ------- ------- 

9414863 20110413 07:54    5.09    5.08    5.09
9414863 20110413 08:00    5.10    5.12    5.13
9414863 20110413 08:06    5.11    5.16    5.16
9414863 20110413 08:12    5.11    5.15    5.16
9414863 20110413 08:18    5.11    5.15    5.16
9414863 20110413 08:24    5.10    5.16    5.17
9414863 20110413 08:30    5.09    5.17    5.18
9414863 20110413 08:36    5.08    5.15    5.16
9414863 20110413 08:42    5.06    5.12    5.14
9414863 20110413 08:48    5.03    5.11    5.12

For the sake of those that are visiting the blog for the first time, or who, like me, have short memories, here are the water levels of significance to this case:

5.45' MHW (average of all H and HH tides
5.88' water level from HH tide on morning of April 13, 2003
6.05' MHHW (average of only the HH tides)
6.39' water level for People's 100

You can see that 5.17 is below the MHW of 5.45, well below the MHHW of 6.05, and very much below the People's 100 of 6.39.

First, let's view the digital photos taken from 8:16 - 8:18 a.m., with the water level at 5.15'.  They are of the south breakwater just in front of the grass section where Conner was found and then moving to the west.  You can see that the water from the tide is barely at the front of the rocks.

In the above photo, the rock we believed Gard measured from is in the right forefront. The turtle rock (named so because it has a shell-shape with a protrusion that looks like a turtle head) is to its left and just slightly in front of it.  

First People's 100, and then the next set of photos taken at 8:44-8:45 a.m., with the water level falling from 5.12' to 5.11'.  Interestingly, this was at the predicted water level for this high tide.  The photos take you full circle around the site.

The two faded-red flags you see in the photo above and below are the two possible locations where Conner was found.

The 3rd red flag shown in the photo above, and by itself in the photo below, is the location marked by Gard's GPS readings for the exact location Conner was found.

Some readers may wonder whether this high tide of only 5.17' is a fluke, out of the norm for this site.  I will provide objective evidence from the NOAA that this high tide is not a fluke in my next article.  And I am pleased to say that I was able to get onto the Bay side of the south breakwater to take photos from that perspective.  I also found some interesting debris both on the site and in the rocks -- more to look forward to.