Laci's Walk

In spite of the prosecution’s insistence that Laci Peterson had stopped walking her dog McKenzie about 2 months prior to her disappearance, there is information in testimony and in police, media, and medical reports to prove otherwise:

From Larry King Live, January 3, 2003

S. ROCHA: Yes. Yes. She always took her dog for a walk. Not necessarily every single morning. Because she is far along in her pregnancy, but yes, that was her normal routine, to take the dog for a walk in the park.

From Amy Rocha’s testimony (Preliminary hearing)

Q. Okay. And you know that within that last couple of days that she'd also been to the -- been to the park walking the dog or walking McKenzie; isn't that correct?
A. I don't know for sure if she walked to the park, but I knew that she'd been walking frequently, yes.

From medical records and from Brocchini’s interview with Kristen Reed:

GERAGOS: If I were to tell you that Laci had called the OBGYN and had indicated that she was concerned about weight gain, even after the doctor had recommended that she stop, and that she was walking again even though the doctor had asked her to stop. And then you get Kristen Reed's statement that she made to you that she had started walking again because of weight gain, would that change your opinion or your belief that she had been walking on the 24th?

Numerous tips were called into the Modesto Police Department after Laci disappeared about women seen walking dogs in the park and in the Covena neighborhood on December 24 (Prosecution Exhibit 267). Some of the sightings could not have been Laci because of the time, the description, or the location. Many other sightings may have been credible, but there is no information available about them. There were other women who regularly walked their dogs in the area.

However, we do have information from 4 very credible witnesses who were sure they saw Laci and McKenzie in the same area on the morning of December 24 around 10 a.m.-- Homer Maldonado, Tony Freitas, Martha Aguilar, and Gene Pedrioli. These sightings suggest a route for Laci on that morning: leaving home, going south on Covena, west on Miller to La Loma and then northwest along La Loma. It doesn't seem likely that four people independently were imagining this. These sightings support the theory that Laci left home around 10 a.m. and headed south, not north to the park.
Laci had become fearful about walking in the park shortly before her disappearance because of reported attacks in that area. She still walked with Scott and McK in the park, but she insisted that Scott carry pepper spray when they did. Given her fear of walking in the park, it would make sense that she would choose to walk in the neighborhood when she was by herself.

Maldonado, Freitas, Aguilar and Pedrioli called the MPD tipline to report that they had seen Laci on the morning of the 24th. None of their calls were returned by MPD. The initial investigation of these tips was done by defense investigators, not by the Modesto police. Not until the trial were investigators sent by the District Attorney to interview Maldonado and Freitas. Aguilar and Pedrioli were never interviewed by police or by prosecutors.

These were their stories:

Homer Maldonado:

He and his wife had stopped to buy gas at the USA station on the corner of Miller Avenue and Camellia Way between 9:45 and 10:00 a.m. on December 24. After leaving the gas station they drove west on Miller. At the corner of Covena and Miller, Maldonado saw Laci and McK in front of the second house from the corner on the west side of the street (211 Covena). He described her as very pregnant and having trouble controlling the dog. When he checked his rearview mirror, he saw that Laci did not cross Miller but evidently turned the corner and continued walking west on the north side of Miller.

Maldonado reported this to the MPD tipline on January 1, 2003. When he was not contacted by the Modesto Police, he went to the Command Post at the Park where he reported his sighting and spoke to the chaplain. He was never interviewed by the Modesto Police. In July 2004, during the trial, he was interviewed by an investigator from the DA’s office.

Tony Freitas:

Around 10 a.m. on the morning of December 24, Freitas was driving his regular delivery route northwest on La Loma Avenue when he saw Laci and McK near the intersection where there is a small, grassy triangular park, located on La Loma between Santa Barbara and N. Santa Ana.

Freitas reported this to the MPD tipline on December 30, 2002. The woman who took his call said he would be contacted by a detective. Freitas was never contacted by anyone from the Modesto Police Department. On July 29, 2004, during the trial, he was interviewed by a DA Investigator.

Martha Aguilar:

Around 10 a.m. on the morning of December 24, Aguilar saw Laci and McK walking on La Loma Avenue in the same general area that Freitas saw her. She was sure it was Laci. Aguilar lived 2 blocks south of Laci on Covena and they went to the same doctor.

Aguilar’s call to the MPD tipline was never returned. She was never interviewed by anyone from MPD or from the DA’s office.

Gene Pedrioli:

Gene Pedrioli saw Laci and McK around 10 a.m. on the morning of December 24 around the time he picked up a prescription at a pharmacy. He saw them on La Loma Avenue in the same area where they had been seen by Aguilar. He noticed McK because he has a dog the same color. He said that the woman and the dog had to walk around some branches that were on the sidewalk.

Pedrioli made 2 calls to the MPD tip line. He was told that he would have to prove his whereabouts. He thought the police were not interested in his tip. He was never contacted by them or by the DA’s office.

We do not know how far Laci walked on La Loma Avenue after she was seen by Maldonado, Freitas, Aguilar and Pedrioli. She may have gone all the way to Kewin Park before she turned northeast on Buena Vista up to Encina, or she may have turned north to Encina on one of the streets before that. We do believe that she arrived back on her block on Covena around 10:38 a.m. where she was abducted, and where McK was heard barking aggressively by the Krigbaums and was seen in the park at the north end of Covena by Mike Chiavetta.

These sightings prove beyond a doubt that Laci Peterson was alive on the morning of December 24 after Scott Peterson left home and that he had nothing at all to do with her disappearance and death.

Reversible Error: A Jury Hostile to the Defendant

Cyril Wecht reacted quite strongly to the death penalty verdict in the Scott Peterson case. Having been involved as a Defense expert, he knew first hand that the State had no physical evidence against Scott.

Absent any physical evidence, Wecht said, the jurors had to imagine Scott Peterson premeditated the murder, transported Laci Peterson's body to a dock, loaded it on a boat and dumped it in the sea -- all without leaving any physical evidence for investigators to find. Given the advanced forensic techniques available to modern investigators, "This is not so easily accomplished," Wecht said. (Source)

Wecht offered an explanation for this miscarriage of justice:

"I think that [the jurors] clearly were in a vengeful mode," he said during a news conference a few minutes later. "They set upon a path, and this is what they were going to do."

"Somewhere along the line it is clear to me that not only was the jury lost to the defense, but the jury became hostile to the defense." (Ibid)

Because of sealed court records that are available through various motions, we can identify that point "somewhere along the line" when the jury became hostile to the Defendant, Scott Peterson, and watch with horror as Judge Delucchi aided and abetted the process.

Delucchi prided himself on understanding human nature, and being able to discern the credibility of witnesses. However, his people skills entirely failed in the Scott Peterson trial, as he was given the first signs of significant hostility towards the defendant very early in the trial. He should have heeded the warning presented by three stealth jurors attempting to get onto the jury for the sole purpose of sending Scott Peterson to death row, as mentioned in both the Court Minutes for April 14, 2003, and the Defense Motion for a new trial:

THE COURT ADDRESSED THE TWO "STEALTH" JURORS EXCUSED. THE COURT WILL REQUIRE THE DEFENSE TO GIVE THE PROSECUTION THE ACCUSORS NAME(S) TO CHECK OUT AND POSSIBLY BRING THEM INTO COURT TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH AS TO THE ALLEGATIONS TO A PROSPECTIVE "STEALTH" JUROR. (Court Minutes)

Even more alarming, three separate "stealth" jurors - people who deliberately lied on their questionnaire in order to convict the defendant - were discovered. Despite these warning signs and a renewed motion for change of venue, the court chose to plow ahead in San Mateo. (Motion, p. 11)

However, just three weeks into the trial, Delucchi failed to recognize and contain concerted efforts by various reporters and by John Guinasso, Juror Number 8, to oust Justin Falconer, Juror Number 5. Is it a mere coincidence, Judge Delucchi, that these two incidents happened in such close succession to each other?

ModBee reporter Garth Stapley described Guinasso's demeanor during the trial and his uncanny ability to recall minute details without having taken notes:

From the jury box, John Guinasso seemed to sneer at Scott Peterson and his attorney Mark Geragos. During the double-murder trial that lasted much of last year, Guinasso, 43, usually sat with arms folded, often scowling, rarely taking notes. . . . More talkative jurors said Guinasso's ability to recall minute details during deliberations was astounding. ("Juror Reveals Secrets of Trial," March 11, 2005)

The timing of Guinasso's allegations against Falconer suggest it was part of a broader concerted effort to identify jurors favorable to the defense and remove them. Falconer was the first target. Various reporters told the public that he was giving Scott and the defense attorneys "verbal encouragement" as he entered the courtroom each day. Then, one morning an innocent exchange between him and Brent Rocha at the security check-in was totally misrepresented. Delucchi interviewed both Rocha and Falconer, and concluded the incident in fact was misrepresented.

Based on press reports over the June 19 weekend, the Court was concerned whether Juror Number 5 had told Laci Peterson's brother, Brent Rocha, something to the effect of "you lose today," when the two of them were at the courthouse security checkpoint. That Monday, June 21, 2004, the Court examined Rocha, who denied that any such words were said, and instead explained that, at the courthouse metal detector, Juror 5 may have been beside Rocha, "all he said is I got in the way of your shot for the news today." (RT 10477:7-8). . . . The Court also examined Juror 5, who's version of the events was identical to Rocha's. (Motion, p. 23)

This first effort failed to remove Falconer, as Delucchi ruled that he had done nothing wrong. That's when Guinasso took over and sent the Judge a note making several allegations against Falconer, serious enough that, if true, warranted his removal.

Juror 8 made a series of accusations against Juror 5: (1) That Juror 5 "constantly" discussed the evidence in violation of the Court's admonition; (2) That Juror 5 stated to other jurors that the anchor was too small to anchor the boat in the bay; (3) That Juror 5 made comments regarding Brocchini's testimony; (4) That Juror 5 made comments about Laci's weight during her pregnancy; (5) That Juror 5 made comments criticizing the Modesto Police reports; (6) That more than once Juror 5 criticized the prosecution; (7) That Juror 5 was told by his girlfriend that Court TV had criticized him and that he took pride in being called a loose cannon, and (8) That Juror 5 had been repeatedly admonished by other jurors and had been defiant. (Motion, p. 26)

Delucchi interviewed each juror and alternate under oath. Without exception, Guinasso's accusations were either denied or were much less than he reported. Juror Number 3, alleged to be a co-complainant, denied the accusations against Falconer and denied ever complaining about him (Motion, p. 32-33).

It was Guinasso's word against Falconer and 16 other jurors and alternates, all under oath, and Delucchi chose to believe Guinasso. Delucchi erroneously claimed that the other 16 confirmed Guinasso's accusations, and explained away Number 3's denials:

But I suspect that maybe she was intimidated by coming in here, and maybe she felt that she was going to be held responsible for her comments. (Motion, p. 52)

Delucchi then proceeded to remove Falconer from the Jury.

Whichever way you look at it, Delucchi made a very bad decision. Either he was not justified in removing Falconer from the jury, or he was, but should have also removed up to 4 other jurors.

• Guinasso implicated two other jurors in the misconduct with Falconer -- the "redhead" and another unnamed juror (Motion, p. 66). Why weren't these two jurors also removed for misconduct?
• Juror Number 3 lied under oath, and Delucchi believed that she was also guilty of discussing the case with Falconer contrary to the Court's instructions. So, why wasn't she removed?
• The anonymous juror who also complained about Falconer, but obviously also lied under oath and denied the accusations.

How much more obvious can it be that something is going on with this jury that is not right? Delucchi himself uses the word "intimidated." Why didn't Juror Number 3 feel secure in confiding to the Judge what was going on, if it was in fact true? And, how could Delucchi trust someone who, he believes, has already disobeyed his instructions but lied under oath to cover it up?

When Delucchi chose to believe Guinasso over 16 other jurors and alternates, he sent a very loud message to those jurors and alternates -- Guinasso is the man in control! Are we surprised, then, to see Guinasso deeply involved in the removal of the two jurors during deliberations, and proudly taking credit for it? (ModBee, "Juror Reveals Secrets of Trial," March 11, 2005)

Conclusion

Cyril Wecht noted that "Somewhere along the line it is clear to me that not only was the jury lost to the defense, but the jury became hostile to the defense." The Court record makes it plain that the events that led to the removal of Justin Falconer from the Jury are that point "along the line" when the jury became hostile to the defense. Three weeks into the trial, Scott Peterson's conviction was sealed.

Junk Science

The Blog article about Dr. DeVore includes this statement:

Only Dr. Devore, by discrediting all the other information provided to him, and by using a very questionable technique and "junk science" was able to give the prosecution exactly what they wanted. He was a very important part of a prosecution strategy that sent an innocent man to death row.
-----------------------------------

One of the comments to the article asks this question:
Please describe in your own words what the term "junk science" means to you.

In my own words I would describe junk science as the use of unproven techniques and the dishonest manipulation of facts and figures to obtain a required result.

Another definition from junkscience.com is faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special and, often, hidden agendas.

SII, including information from several sources, discusses junk science:

Junk Science is one of the major factors in wrongful convictions.

Its deadly potential comes from the trust the Courts and the Jurors place in "expert testimony," when they generally can't tell a good expert from a bad expert.

Junk Science results from a number of factors:

The theory or method is untested.

Peer review is generally the way that new theories and methods undergo the critical analysis necessary
to ensure they are scientifically sound.

The theory or method is scientifically sound, but the expert using the theory or method is not sufficiently skilled in its use, or is careless in its use.

The theory or method is scientifically sound, but the results are exaggerated to mean much more than they really do.

Experts yield to the pressure to please their client, to interpret the data to produce the results the client wants.

The general public seems content with the myth that "paid experts,"i.e., experts that are paid to deliver the desired outcome, result only from rich defendants who can afford to pay for such, and that every expert who testifies for the State is well-qualified, highly ethical, and only wants to present the truth.

Another comment on the blog notes that junk science does not follow the Daubert requirements for scientific evidence:

* The theory or technique must be non falsifiable, non refutable, and testable.
* The theory or technique must have been subjected to peer review and publication.
* The theory or technique must have a known or quantifiable error and to be valid requires the existence and maintenance of standards concerning its operation.
* The theory or technique must be generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.

Junk science is considered a major factor in wrongful convictions by the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law, and by the Innocence Project.

The Center on Wrongful Convictions of Northwestern University School of Law identifies four types of false or unreliable evidence :
~ False testimony by informant or "snitch" witnesses
~ Incorrect eyewitness identification
~ False confessions
~ False or unreliable forensic evidence or "junk science"

The Innocence project
Since forensic evidence is offered by "experts," jurors routinely give it much more weight than other evidence. But when misconduct occurs, the weight is misplaced.
*******

If you would like to continue a discussion about this blog article instead of posting a comment, please sign up at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SIIgroup

Dr. DeVore's Curious Calculations

Dr. Brian Peterson, the forensic pathologist who performed autopsies for Contra Costa County, testified at Scott Peterson’s preliminary hearing that he thought Conner Peterson was a 9 month/full term fetus, based on a crown rump measurement of 32 centimeters. However, he knew that this measurement was just an estimate, and for a more accurate assessment of the age of the fetus at the time of death he consulted Dr. Alison Galloway, a forensic anthropologist.

Dr. Galloway concluded that Conner was 35-36 weeks old at the time he died. With a standard deviation of 2 weeks plus or minus, she said the earliest he died was 33 weeks, the latest 38 weeks. To reach her conclusions Dr. Galloway made 11 measurements: length of the bones from the upper leg (femur), the lower leg (tibia), the upper arm (humerus), the parietal cord (height, perimeter height, cord width, perimeter width), right frontal cord (height, perimeter height, cord width, perimeter width); and she verified the age range with well accepted formulas from three different textbooks.

At the time of Laci’s last prenatal visit to the Hera Medical Group on December 23, 2002, Conner’s age was 32 weeks 1 day. (Dr. Tow-Der, rounding the number off, noted 32 weeks on Laci’s medical chart). At the time of the second ultrasound on September 24, Laci’s due date had been revised from February 10 to February 16. Several measurements made by Dr. Yip at that time (abdominal circumference, head circumference, biparietal diameter and femur length) indicated that Conner was 6 days younger than originally estimated.

The calculations of Dr. Galloway, who testified for the prosecution, indicated that Conner had died on December 29 (fetus age 33 weeks) at the very earliest.

This was not what the prosecution wanted to hear; so they went looking for another expert to support their theory that Scott Peterson had killed his wife between 8:30 p.m. on December 23 and 10:08 a.m. on December 24.

And they found Dr. Greggory DeVore, who was willing to see things their way, and who was willing to manipulate numbers and information to come up with the calculations the prosecution required.

Dr. DeVore was hired by the prosecution in February 2004. On February 8, he went to the Contra Costa County Coroner’s office where he was given Conner’s femur bone. He placed the bone on a cup in a water bath (like a fish tank) and measured it 3 times with his portable ultrasound machine. This was the only test he did. On the basis of this, he produced a report on February 19 which stated unequivocally that Conner had died on December 25. The prosecution did not like this estimate either.

So, on the day he testified, Dr. DeVore changed his story. He said that December 25 was a mistake, that he had been adding up the numbers on his hands.

In testimony, Dr. DeVore insisted that December 23 was the date of Conner’s death. Although he said he had created a spread sheet to verify this, the only thing he provided in court to support his theory was a free hand graph. His miraculous calculation, based on measuring one bone 3 times in a tank of water, was exactly the number the prosecution required. To arrive at this number, Dr. DeVore completely dismissed much of the information from Laci’s doctors including the revised due date, and discounted the opinions of the forensic pathologist, the forensic anthropologist and various ultrasound and x-ray experts. He relied on the measurement of only one bone—a scientifically unsound method, and chose the only formula which could match the date he wanted.

Dr. Charles March, testifying for the defense, considered all the information available to him: doctor’s records and information, autopsy records, forensic analysis, interviews with family and friends and he agreed with the calculations of Dr. Galloway and Dr. Yip. He reached the conclusion that the earliest date Conner could have died was December 29. One of the things he considered was the date of Laci’s first positive pregnancy test, June 9, 2002. This date was confirmed by family members and friends in investigative reports and in an interview with Katie Couric on the year anniversary, June 9, 2003. The date of Laci’s first positive pregnancy test was 6 days later than might have been expected, and this was verified by her second ultrasound and the decision of Laci’s doctors to change her due date from Feb 10 to Feb 16.

Only Dr. Devore, by discrediting all the other information provided to him, and by using a very questionable technique and “junk science” was able to give the prosecution exactly what they wanted. He was a very important part of a prosecution strategy that sent an innocent man to death row.

___________________________________________________________________
To see a video of Dr. DeVore talking with Greta Van Susteren “On the Record,” December 17, 2004, go to the following link. The other videos on this link show the strong media attention given to Dr. DeVore’s testimony and the very superficial analysis done by most of the reporters.
http://www.fetal.com/Inthenews/peterson.html

Todd and the Bicycle

On January 2, 2003 Steven Todd and Donald Pearce were arrested and charged for the burglary which had taken place at the home of Rudy and Susan Medina sometime between 10:32 a.m. on December 24 and 4:30 p.m. on December 26 while the Medinas were out of town. The Medinas lived almost directly across the street from the home of Laci and Scott Peterson.

Todd and Pearce first claimed that the burglary had occurred during the early morning hours of December 27; but when MPD realized that Medinas were home by that time and the burglary had already been discovered, they accepted a revised account that said the burglary had occurred on December 26 between 3:30 and 6:30 a.m.

That’s not the only incredible information that MPD accepted from Steve Todd and Donald Pearce.

A large safe measuring 2 ½’ x 2 ½’ x 3’ was discovered at the residence of Todd and Pearce on January 2. When Officer Hicks of the MPD interviewed Todd and Pearce, he was told by them that the safe had been transported in the front seat of Pearce’s little white Honda from the Medina’s house to their residence. The police accepted this story as fact, even though there had been a report from Diane Jackson that she had seen 3 men with a van and a safe in the front yard at Medina’s on the morning of December 24 at 11:40 a.m.

Steve Todd and Donald Pearce were cleared of all involvement in Laci Peterson’s disappearance on January 3, 2003. After that time, no effort was made by MPD to find the 3 men or the van seen by Diane Jackson on December 24.

The Medina’s large safe, some of Mrs. Medina’s jewelry and a gun which had been inside the safe were recovered in various places in Modesto or returned anonymously to the police department. Another gun which had been in a camera bag was also recovered.

However, there were several things that were never recovered. The following is our transcription of the insurance form submitted by Medinas with a partial listing of items that were never returned to them. (Defense Exhibit I)


Fire Fyter Safe 2500 $242
Antique Ivory Hand figure
pliers set
4 cycle gas trimmer
Rolling tool box
3/5 Drill
Small pliers
32 piece airtool
Craftsman reciprocating saw
Reciprocating blade
Craftsman sabre saw
sabre blade
Polaroid camera
Canon camera
photo lens
portrait lens
regular lens
power winder
finishing sander
Black & Decker drill
Louis Vuitton bag
FF Safe 2500 $189
Linx knife
trimmer line
drill bit
Bypass pruner
grip wrench
pliers set
tool –plier
automotive tool
2 poly rope
Bostich brad nailer
clutch driver
mechanic tool set
power bit
65 pc. Bit set
recon. Edger
stud sensor
24 inch tool box
tie nipper
B&D hedge trimmer
ratchet tie down
Polaroid 600
camera bag, canvas
camera accessory
new French door keys
Binocular, Bushnell
2 sm. Binocular
gun bag for Beretta
Trimmer, speed space
Jewelry box, walnut
Jewelry box, oak
Numerous tools in the tool box

The only item transported in the little white Honda, according to Todd and Pearce, was the large safe and its contents. Todd said he removed the other items from the property on 2 trips home using his bicycle and a backpack.

Take another good look at this list. None of the tools taken from Medinas were ever recovered. How is it possible that Todd took all of these items away on his bicycle? The number of items and the number of heavy items makes this part of his story just as absurd as the rest of it.

****************
If you would like to join a discussion about this blog article or others, sign up at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SIIgroup

Announcing: SII Yahoo Group

As a supplement to this blog, we have created a SII Yahoo group for discussions. Although it's called SII, you can discuss any article on this blog or any subject related to the Criminal Justice System.

This is not a message board. You will not be allowed to post pictures of yourself, or to have avatars, or to private message other members.

Anyone can join, but all messages will be moderated. That simply means that they have to be approved before they are published. This is to protect the group members against harassment and spam. This will naturally slow down the pace. We expect posts to be reviewed at least twice daily, but during holidays or other times we may go a day or two.

The only rule we have is mutual respect. That means:

• No name calling
• No ridicule
• No copying messages to other boards (unless you have permission from the author)
• No profanity or vulgar language

The really nice feature of Yahoo groups is that you can receive each message as an email, or you can receive a Daily Digest.

To join, just click http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SIIgroup.

You do not have to join the Yahoo group to continue receiving email notifications of new articles on this blog.

Author says Peterson confessed how and why he killed Laci

The Modesto Bee (Garth Stapley) has a very lengthy review and historical perspective on Donna Thomas' book, "I'm Sorry I Lied to You: The Confession of Scott Peterson." http://www.modbee.com/local/story/172377.html

For details on how Scott committed the murder, she adds very little to what was "suggested" at the trial -- even borrowing from Mark Geragos' question to Brocchini, asking if he thought Scott planned to shoot himself if he was pulled over by a cop on the way to or from the Berkeley Marina. Oh, and she did add one tidbit -- he read a playboy magazine while waiting to be sure no one was around before he actually dumped her body. I bet Rick Distaso, Dave Harris, and Birgit Fladager wish they would have thought of that one!

Garth Stapley does make a very accurate observation about the trial: "Authorities speculated but provided no evidence of when or how Laci Peterson was killed."

Finally, someone publicly admits that Scott Peterson was convicted on speculation, not evidence.