The Judge ruled in Scott's favor!
As reported by the Modesto Bee
Judge Roger Beauchesne ruled Friday that Peterson's conviction and death sentence would not speak for themselves during a wrongful death trial. Beauchesne stayed his ruling until June 23 to allow lawyers to appeal.
>>>
Attorneys for Laci Peterson's father, Dennis Rocha, and mother, Sharon Rocha, argued that the facts of the case were already settled. Beauchesne disagreed, saying there were still issues in the case sufficient to be re-tried.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Rocha v. Peterson, civil wrongful death suit
A hearing tomorrow (June 6) will decide the scope of this civil trial:
The court has set aside more than a month for the trial – which is scheduled to begin on July 8. But one of the family's attorneys told the Modesto Bee that he believed it would not take that long if Beachesne rules that Peterson's conviction and death sentence are allowed in as fact in the case. [KTVU]
We all know from previous cases (O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake) that an acquittal is not allowed in as fact in a civil wrongful conviction suit. So, why should a conviction be allowed in as fact?
The court has set aside more than a month for the trial – which is scheduled to begin on July 8. But one of the family's attorneys told the Modesto Bee that he believed it would not take that long if Beachesne rules that Peterson's conviction and death sentence are allowed in as fact in the case. [KTVU]
We all know from previous cases (O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake) that an acquittal is not allowed in as fact in a civil wrongful conviction suit. So, why should a conviction be allowed in as fact?
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
The Hidden Harshman Tip
The story of Tom Harshman and his tip is one of the most outrageous examples of the failure by MPD police detectives to follow leads that could have found Laci Peterson alive and that were totally exculpatory for Scott.
Tom Harshman, who lived in Modesto, saw something that really concerned him near the corner of Scenic Drive and Claus Road as he was driving with Elizabeth Harshman between 2 and 4 p.m. on the afternoon of December 24. He saw a young pregnant woman being forced into a van. After driving past this scene, Harshman was so upset that he turned around and went back to the spot hoping to find the van still there and hoping to get more information about the license plate number.
He called the police on the same day he saw this. Calls before December 26 did not go to the Laci tip line but instead to 911 or to the main number at the MPD.
When Harshman’s call was not returned by MPD, he tried again. By December 28 when Laci’s disappearance had become public knowledge, he was sure that the woman he had seen was Laci Peterson.
On December 28, Tom Harshman called the Laci tipline twice. His first call on this date was listed incorrectly under the name Harsh and was given Bates Stamp number 14789. The call was given to Detective Holmes. Harsh(man) said that he had called 3 or 4 days earlier on the day that he had seen a pregnant young woman being pushed into a van. There had been a man standing over her as she squatted to urinate with her back up against a chain-link fence. The man was described as 30’s, tall, thin, with ponytail, dirty blonde to gray hair, scrubby looking. When she finished, the woman was shepherded back to the driver’s door of the car, where another man’s arm was seen pulling her into the car. He said the young woman was wearing black pants and a red shirt. He said she had a scared look on her face.
Harshman called back on December 28 with additional information, and this time his name was listed correctly under Bates stamp number 14791. This call also was given to Detective Holmes. Harshman said he had been driving on Scenic east of Coffee when he saw the woman being forced into a van. The van was an older white van with 3 windows and a tan stripe on the side, approximately a foot wide. The woman had dark hair, was wearing black pants and a red shirt. He added that the man was a white male, forties, and was wearing a ball cap.
By January 3, 2003 Harshman still had not received a call back from MPD. He knew that his information was significant; and so he tried again. On January 3, he went to the Command Post at the park and spoke to the officer on duty there. The officer made notes about his information. Harshman described the location of the sighting as the south side of Scenic near Claus Road. He repeated the information mentioned in previous contacts.
Harshman believed his report would reach the detectives and they would do something about it. He was wrong. He did not receive any followup calls during the investigation. Nothing in the 40,000 pages of discovery provided to the defense included anything about Harshman’s report to the Command Post. Only during the trial was Sergeant Cloward able to find this report in one of his binders.
About a month later, sometime in February 2003, Harshman’s wife spoke to a relative of hers who lived in New York about the sighting of Laci Peterson near the corner of Scenic and Claus. Mrs. Harshman’s relative shared this story with an NYPD detective. This NYPD detective was so concerned that he contacted the MPD and spoke personally to Detective Grogan on February 14, 2003. What did Grogan do with the information? Nothing at all. Only the tip number and a brief notation were provided in the discovery.
More than a year later during the pre-trial hearings in May of 2004, DA Investigator Kevin Bertalotto noticed the Harshman tip and insisted that Grogan call Tom Harshman and speak to him personally. Grogan did this on May 18, 2004.
Grogan provided an audiotape and a transcription of his conversation with Harshman to the defense on May 20, 11 days before the beginning of the trial. This was the first time that the defense was made aware that a woman resembling Laci Peterson had been forced into a van near the corner of Scenic and Claus on the same day that a similar van had been seen by Diane Jackson in front of the Medina’s house. Harshman specifically said in this interview with Grogan that he had seen the woman’s face when she was up against the fence. That’s what he had concentrated on. He said there was a scared look on her face.
On May 24, 2004 Mark Geragos filed a Defense Motion for Sanctions Against the Prosecution for the use of an unqualified hypnotist with Diane Jackson and also for hiding the details of the Harshman tip. On May 27 the Prosecutor filed his response and hearings were held. The prosecution motion contains this misleading paragraph:
The defense neglects to tell the court that the alleged sighting took place on December 28, 2002 (four days after Laci Peterson disappeared) and that the witness had previously spoken to Modesto Police Detective Denis Holmes on that same date. Further, the witness's description of the woman's clothing did not match the clothing Laci Peterson was wearing when she was ultimately found. Finally, the witness's name, address, telephone number and a description of his statement were previously provided to the defense on May 14, 2003 in the initial discovery.
Ruling that these incidents together constituted exculpatory evidence and to exclude them would be a Brady violation, Judge Delucchi allowed the prehypnosis interviews of Diane Jackson along with the Harshman information into the trial. However, he did not impose sanctions on the prosecution. Judge Delucchi concluded that the van seen by Jackson and Harshman could have been the same vehicle.
GERAGOS:... Both people initially say they think it's a white van but it's a little darker and they describe it as tan.
DISTASO:...Miss Jackson says a white van, and she changes it then to say a beige or tan van.
GERAGOS:...He says it looked white but it was really a little darker, it was kind of cream. They both are describing the same thing.
As far as the descriptions of the men associated with the van, consider this. Diane Jackson did not see the driver of the van. She saw only the 3 dark-skinned men outside the van. Harshman saw only the driver of the van and another man’s arm. There could have been other men inside the van that he did not see; or the other men may have stayed behind at this point.
The timing of these sightings can be explained in this way. Diane Jackson saw a van, 3 men, and a safe in the front yard at Medina’s at 11:40 a.m. on the 24th. She was witnessing the final step in a burglary which had started approximately an hour before, shortly after Medina’s left home and around the time Laci was abducted and taken away, probably in this same van. Apparently Laci was held in another location in Modesto for a while, probably some place in the airport neighborhood, and then a few hours later was being transported in the van at the time Harshman saw her near the corner of Scenic and Claus. She was probably being taken out of town. Claus Road is a good alternate route leading out of Modesto to points north.
During the trial Mark Geragos decided to bring information about the Laci sightings in through the testimony of Detective Grogan. Grogan’s testimony about Tom Harshman and his tip verges on perjury. He claims that he did not know that the tips from Harsh and Harshman on the same day were from the same person even though they contained the same call back number and similar information.
Grogan also backtracked after saying that red dot #41 on prosecution exhibit 267-8 (far right on the map) was Tom Harshman’s tip even though the location and the time of day are exactly the same. Grogan said #41 could not be Harshman because Harshman did not witness this incident until December 28, and #41 was a tip for a sighting on December 24. Grogan said that the dot for Harshman’s tip could be found on the United States map. When Harshman made the call to MPD on the 28th, he specifically stated that this was something he had seen 3 or 4 days before and that he had initially called in with the information shortly after he saw it. Grogan misrepresents this by saying that Harshman said he called in on the same day he saw this incident and that because he called in on the 28th, he must have witnessed the event on the 28th.
Many concerned citizens tried to get the Modesto Police Department to listen to their valid sightings of Laci Peterson. Even one credible sighting of Laci after Scott left home is proof of his innocence. There are several credible sightings. Tom Harshman’s tip is one of the most compelling and the most disturbing because of MPD’s failure to respond to it and their subsequent decision to cover it up. Tom Harshman was persistent. He tried and tried again. His repeated efforts were met with silence.
Tom Harshman, who lived in Modesto, saw something that really concerned him near the corner of Scenic Drive and Claus Road as he was driving with Elizabeth Harshman between 2 and 4 p.m. on the afternoon of December 24. He saw a young pregnant woman being forced into a van. After driving past this scene, Harshman was so upset that he turned around and went back to the spot hoping to find the van still there and hoping to get more information about the license plate number.
He called the police on the same day he saw this. Calls before December 26 did not go to the Laci tip line but instead to 911 or to the main number at the MPD.
When Harshman’s call was not returned by MPD, he tried again. By December 28 when Laci’s disappearance had become public knowledge, he was sure that the woman he had seen was Laci Peterson.
On December 28, Tom Harshman called the Laci tipline twice. His first call on this date was listed incorrectly under the name Harsh and was given Bates Stamp number 14789. The call was given to Detective Holmes. Harsh(man) said that he had called 3 or 4 days earlier on the day that he had seen a pregnant young woman being pushed into a van. There had been a man standing over her as she squatted to urinate with her back up against a chain-link fence. The man was described as 30’s, tall, thin, with ponytail, dirty blonde to gray hair, scrubby looking. When she finished, the woman was shepherded back to the driver’s door of the car, where another man’s arm was seen pulling her into the car. He said the young woman was wearing black pants and a red shirt. He said she had a scared look on her face.
Harshman called back on December 28 with additional information, and this time his name was listed correctly under Bates stamp number 14791. This call also was given to Detective Holmes. Harshman said he had been driving on Scenic east of Coffee when he saw the woman being forced into a van. The van was an older white van with 3 windows and a tan stripe on the side, approximately a foot wide. The woman had dark hair, was wearing black pants and a red shirt. He added that the man was a white male, forties, and was wearing a ball cap.
By January 3, 2003 Harshman still had not received a call back from MPD. He knew that his information was significant; and so he tried again. On January 3, he went to the Command Post at the park and spoke to the officer on duty there. The officer made notes about his information. Harshman described the location of the sighting as the south side of Scenic near Claus Road. He repeated the information mentioned in previous contacts.
Harshman believed his report would reach the detectives and they would do something about it. He was wrong. He did not receive any followup calls during the investigation. Nothing in the 40,000 pages of discovery provided to the defense included anything about Harshman’s report to the Command Post. Only during the trial was Sergeant Cloward able to find this report in one of his binders.
About a month later, sometime in February 2003, Harshman’s wife spoke to a relative of hers who lived in New York about the sighting of Laci Peterson near the corner of Scenic and Claus. Mrs. Harshman’s relative shared this story with an NYPD detective. This NYPD detective was so concerned that he contacted the MPD and spoke personally to Detective Grogan on February 14, 2003. What did Grogan do with the information? Nothing at all. Only the tip number and a brief notation were provided in the discovery.
More than a year later during the pre-trial hearings in May of 2004, DA Investigator Kevin Bertalotto noticed the Harshman tip and insisted that Grogan call Tom Harshman and speak to him personally. Grogan did this on May 18, 2004.
Grogan provided an audiotape and a transcription of his conversation with Harshman to the defense on May 20, 11 days before the beginning of the trial. This was the first time that the defense was made aware that a woman resembling Laci Peterson had been forced into a van near the corner of Scenic and Claus on the same day that a similar van had been seen by Diane Jackson in front of the Medina’s house. Harshman specifically said in this interview with Grogan that he had seen the woman’s face when she was up against the fence. That’s what he had concentrated on. He said there was a scared look on her face.
On May 24, 2004 Mark Geragos filed a Defense Motion for Sanctions Against the Prosecution for the use of an unqualified hypnotist with Diane Jackson and also for hiding the details of the Harshman tip. On May 27 the Prosecutor filed his response and hearings were held. The prosecution motion contains this misleading paragraph:
The defense neglects to tell the court that the alleged sighting took place on December 28, 2002 (four days after Laci Peterson disappeared) and that the witness had previously spoken to Modesto Police Detective Denis Holmes on that same date. Further, the witness's description of the woman's clothing did not match the clothing Laci Peterson was wearing when she was ultimately found. Finally, the witness's name, address, telephone number and a description of his statement were previously provided to the defense on May 14, 2003 in the initial discovery.
Ruling that these incidents together constituted exculpatory evidence and to exclude them would be a Brady violation, Judge Delucchi allowed the prehypnosis interviews of Diane Jackson along with the Harshman information into the trial. However, he did not impose sanctions on the prosecution. Judge Delucchi concluded that the van seen by Jackson and Harshman could have been the same vehicle.
GERAGOS:... Both people initially say they think it's a white van but it's a little darker and they describe it as tan.
DISTASO:...Miss Jackson says a white van, and she changes it then to say a beige or tan van.
GERAGOS:...He says it looked white but it was really a little darker, it was kind of cream. They both are describing the same thing.
As far as the descriptions of the men associated with the van, consider this. Diane Jackson did not see the driver of the van. She saw only the 3 dark-skinned men outside the van. Harshman saw only the driver of the van and another man’s arm. There could have been other men inside the van that he did not see; or the other men may have stayed behind at this point.
The timing of these sightings can be explained in this way. Diane Jackson saw a van, 3 men, and a safe in the front yard at Medina’s at 11:40 a.m. on the 24th. She was witnessing the final step in a burglary which had started approximately an hour before, shortly after Medina’s left home and around the time Laci was abducted and taken away, probably in this same van. Apparently Laci was held in another location in Modesto for a while, probably some place in the airport neighborhood, and then a few hours later was being transported in the van at the time Harshman saw her near the corner of Scenic and Claus. She was probably being taken out of town. Claus Road is a good alternate route leading out of Modesto to points north.
During the trial Mark Geragos decided to bring information about the Laci sightings in through the testimony of Detective Grogan. Grogan’s testimony about Tom Harshman and his tip verges on perjury. He claims that he did not know that the tips from Harsh and Harshman on the same day were from the same person even though they contained the same call back number and similar information.
Grogan also backtracked after saying that red dot #41 on prosecution exhibit 267-8 (far right on the map) was Tom Harshman’s tip even though the location and the time of day are exactly the same. Grogan said #41 could not be Harshman because Harshman did not witness this incident until December 28, and #41 was a tip for a sighting on December 24. Grogan said that the dot for Harshman’s tip could be found on the United States map. When Harshman made the call to MPD on the 28th, he specifically stated that this was something he had seen 3 or 4 days before and that he had initially called in with the information shortly after he saw it. Grogan misrepresents this by saying that Harshman said he called in on the same day he saw this incident and that because he called in on the 28th, he must have witnessed the event on the 28th.
Many concerned citizens tried to get the Modesto Police Department to listen to their valid sightings of Laci Peterson. Even one credible sighting of Laci after Scott left home is proof of his innocence. There are several credible sightings. Tom Harshman’s tip is one of the most compelling and the most disturbing because of MPD’s failure to respond to it and their subsequent decision to cover it up. Tom Harshman was persistent. He tried and tried again. His repeated efforts were met with silence.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Laci Sightings Were Not a Priority
“Laci sightings were not a priority.” This shocking statement was made by lead detective Craig Grogan during his testimony in the case against Scott Peterson. Unfortunately, the statement is very accurate. The only Laci and/ or McKenzie sightings followed up by the Modesto Police were completed within the first 72 hours after Laci went missing. All tips regarding sightings of Laci and/or McK were ignored by MPD after December 27, 2002.
The investigation and prosecution of Scott Peterson cost Stanislaus County CA $4.13 million dollars. It is impossible to understand why virtually none of this money was spent following leads to find Laci while she was still alive. Within 3 days after they were notified that Laci was missing, the MPD detectives decided that Laci was dead and that Scott had murdered her. Approximately 24 hours after the Laci Peterson tipline opened on December 26, the MPD was ignoring tips that proved Laci was alive at the time Scott Peterson left home on December 24.
These were the only people contacted by MPD about the sightings:
Mike Chiavetta:
• Interviewed by motorcycle policeman (Officer Nicolai) on 12/25/02
Victoria Pouches
• Contacted by Officer Beffa 12/25/02
Chris Van Sandt
• Spoke with Detective Brocchini by phone 12/25/02
John and Karma Souza
• Interviewed by Detective Phil Owen on 12/27/02 (taped phone call)
Diane Campos
• Personal interview with Phil Owen on 12/27/02
Scott’s defense attorneys did not have access to the MPD tip sheet until May 2003. However, they did learn about some of the other sightings. Tony Freitas called a defense investigator on January 20, 2003. Homer Maldonado called Sharon Rocha and Brent Rocha. An article about Vivian Mitchell appeared in the Modesto Bee on February 27, 2003. Martha Aguilar lived only two blocks from the Peterson’s house on Covena. The defense also learned about Gene Pedrioli and Grace Wolf through sources other than MPD.
Grogan’s testimony and the questions asked by Birgit Fladager imply that following up on the sightings was an impossible task. Take a good look at People’s Exhibit 267-3.
In the area within a 1 mile radius of Laci’s house there were 26 sightings. Within a 3 mile radius, there were an additional 7. This is a total of 33. What possible excuse did MPD have for not investigating each and every one of these sightings to determine exactly what was seen by each of the witnesses?
Grogan excuses the MPD failure to follow up on tips by citing Karen Servas’ 10:18 timeline for finding McK. Even if Karen Servas’ timeline were accurate, which it is not, MPD did not have information about her reinvented timeline until January 3. The detectives did nothing to confirm that her time source was valid.
Grogan also says tips were not followed up because phone records indicate that Scott was still in his neighborhood at 10:08. This theory did not take shape until shortly before trial. Two prosecution witnesses stated that cell phone records were not designed to be used to identify location.
Grogan also uses the excuse that tips were not investigated because witnesses reported Laci wearing black pants and her body was found wearing tan pants. MPD did not have this information until mid-April when Laci’s body was found.
Then Grogan indicates that sightings outside of the park were discounted because Laci was planning to walk in the park. This is blatantly false and Grogan knew it. Grogan had been present on December 26 when Chris Boyer interviewed Scott Peterson at his home. Scott clearly stated that Laci sometimes walked in the neighborhood. He told Boyer, in Grogan’s presence that Laci had walked on Sunday, December 22, in the neighborhood.
At the time these sightings were coming in, MPD still believed that Scott had left home around 9:30 a.m. and that Karen Servas had found McK around 10:30 a.m. Each and every one of these sightings should have been investigated thoroughly. MPD’s failure to do so is inexcusable.
The investigation and prosecution of Scott Peterson cost Stanislaus County CA $4.13 million dollars. It is impossible to understand why virtually none of this money was spent following leads to find Laci while she was still alive. Within 3 days after they were notified that Laci was missing, the MPD detectives decided that Laci was dead and that Scott had murdered her. Approximately 24 hours after the Laci Peterson tipline opened on December 26, the MPD was ignoring tips that proved Laci was alive at the time Scott Peterson left home on December 24.
These were the only people contacted by MPD about the sightings:
Mike Chiavetta:
• Interviewed by motorcycle policeman (Officer Nicolai) on 12/25/02
Victoria Pouches
• Contacted by Officer Beffa 12/25/02
Chris Van Sandt
• Spoke with Detective Brocchini by phone 12/25/02
John and Karma Souza
• Interviewed by Detective Phil Owen on 12/27/02 (taped phone call)
Diane Campos
• Personal interview with Phil Owen on 12/27/02
Scott’s defense attorneys did not have access to the MPD tip sheet until May 2003. However, they did learn about some of the other sightings. Tony Freitas called a defense investigator on January 20, 2003. Homer Maldonado called Sharon Rocha and Brent Rocha. An article about Vivian Mitchell appeared in the Modesto Bee on February 27, 2003. Martha Aguilar lived only two blocks from the Peterson’s house on Covena. The defense also learned about Gene Pedrioli and Grace Wolf through sources other than MPD.
Grogan’s testimony and the questions asked by Birgit Fladager imply that following up on the sightings was an impossible task. Take a good look at People’s Exhibit 267-3.
In the area within a 1 mile radius of Laci’s house there were 26 sightings. Within a 3 mile radius, there were an additional 7. This is a total of 33. What possible excuse did MPD have for not investigating each and every one of these sightings to determine exactly what was seen by each of the witnesses?
Grogan excuses the MPD failure to follow up on tips by citing Karen Servas’ 10:18 timeline for finding McK. Even if Karen Servas’ timeline were accurate, which it is not, MPD did not have information about her reinvented timeline until January 3. The detectives did nothing to confirm that her time source was valid.
Grogan also says tips were not followed up because phone records indicate that Scott was still in his neighborhood at 10:08. This theory did not take shape until shortly before trial. Two prosecution witnesses stated that cell phone records were not designed to be used to identify location.
Grogan also uses the excuse that tips were not investigated because witnesses reported Laci wearing black pants and her body was found wearing tan pants. MPD did not have this information until mid-April when Laci’s body was found.
Then Grogan indicates that sightings outside of the park were discounted because Laci was planning to walk in the park. This is blatantly false and Grogan knew it. Grogan had been present on December 26 when Chris Boyer interviewed Scott Peterson at his home. Scott clearly stated that Laci sometimes walked in the neighborhood. He told Boyer, in Grogan’s presence that Laci had walked on Sunday, December 22, in the neighborhood.
At the time these sightings were coming in, MPD still believed that Scott had left home around 9:30 a.m. and that Karen Servas had found McK around 10:30 a.m. Each and every one of these sightings should have been investigated thoroughly. MPD’s failure to do so is inexcusable.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Did Cheng use the wrong starting point?
In our previous analysis of Dr. Ralph Cheng's Progressive Vector Diagram, we pointed out the following flaws:
Recently, in our discussion of People's 101 on the SII Yahoo Group, we noted that Soler represents the exact location where Conner was found to be 73 feet inland from the west breakwater. In his testimony, he gave the same information.
HARRIS: When you, in the diagram the 101, the location of where Conner is at, did you do a triangulation, or take two measurements that come together to where the location of his remains were found?
SOLER: Yes, we did.
HARRIS: And that would be, from that the shorter of the two boulder breakers, it was 73 feet from that location further, and then from the bottom or longer boulder breaker area, 24 feet?
SOLER: That's correct.
Soler also says that People's 101 matches the location he circled in People's 98A.
HARRIS: Then also on 98A, there is another circle with an, I believe it's either O-1 or G-1.
SOLER: 01.
HARRIS: The 01, is that the approximate location where Conner was found?
SOLER: Yes.
HARRIS: Does that correspond to the mark on your diagram where you placed Conner?
SOLER: Yes, it does.
JUDGE: Point it out with the pointer where Conner's body was found so the jury can see it.
SOLER: I'm pointing to the circle that's identified as 01 on this chart.HARRIS: Then also on 98A, there is another circle with an, I believe it's either O-1 or G-1.
SOLER: 01.
HARRIS: The 01, is that the approximate location where Conner was found?
SOLER: Yes.
HARRIS: Does that correspond to the mark on your diagram where you placed Conner?
SOLER: Yes, it does.
JUDGE: Point it out with the pointer where Conner's body was found so the jury can see it.
SOLER: I'm pointing to the circle that's identified as 01 on this chart.
The location circled in People's 98A is NOT the location identified by People's 101. For now, we refer readers to http://scottisinnocent.com/Research&Analysis/evidence/Conner/found.htm, but soon we will have an updated and more thorough analysis of People's 101.
Cheng's Progressive Vector Diagram
The question was asked, Did Dr. Cheng use People's 101 to chart his Progressive Vector Diagram? We did not call attention to this factor in our previous analysis of Cheng's Progressive Vector Diagram, so the question must be answered.
Unfortunately, Cheng was not asked specifically if he used Solar's measurements in People's 101, so we have to read between the lines.
This first excerpt is from David Harris' argument to Judge Delucchi during the brief Kelly-Frye hearing:
David Harris: There was two phases of his work. We aren't really interested in the first phase, but we believe the defense will probably ask about that. The Modesto Police Department contacted him before the bodies were found and said, based on the currents and all the different factors in the Bay, where would a body go based on where an estimate is of where it's placed. So he did some computer simulations for them based on that. After the bodies were recovered, he then went back and plotted, based on where they were recovered, going back, based on wind conditions, tide conditions, currents, trying to predict the most likely location where it's at. With regards to that, counsel's already elicited a lot of that core information through Detective Hendee, asking about the FBI searches and saying Didn't Dr. Cheng predict this particular location.
Under direct examination, Cheng volunteered that he knew the precise location where the bodies were found. (The State had also produced a similar diagram for Laci).
Ralph Cheng: I told them following here I could try. However, it involves similar uncertainty. That is now, when the body was spotted on shore at certain time, it does not imply the body arrived there at that time. Now, we have a little bit better situation that is not -- we know precisely where the body landed. Comparing to the previous scenario, that we were guessing where the body started traveling and at what time. In this case here now, we -- our knowledge has improved. That is now -- the bodies, we know precisely where the body landed. And -- but we didn't know when the body precisely landed at that location. Therefore, in order to reconstruct where the body started moving from, certain position in The Bay, still involves some uncertainty.
And David Harris confirms that he received this information from the detectives.
David Harris: Doctor, what we were talking about is when the detectives give you the information of where Laci and Conner's bodies are recovered, that is an area in the Richmond area over there by Brooks Island. Do you -- is that on the map up there?
>>>>>
Ralph Cheng: It's a combination of the above. Basically we obtain the wind information, time series. We reconstruct, now, based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Handbook, they give you certain formulas for certain given wind conditions. So how much actual water movement would be is not a windspeed- water movement here. And then you would reconstruct hour-by-hour here as if -- assuming the bodies started from here, you go backward rather than going forward here until certain -- to a certain time here.
Dr. Cheng's backward trail led him to specific GPS coordinates.
Mark Geragos: Thank you. And specifically when they asked you to do this, you, at that point, had the locations where the baby is found, and you got the location where Laci is found, and then you do some analysis, and you come up with this section right here with some GPS coordinates, correct?
Ralph Cheng: That is correct.
In order to end with specific GPS coordinates, one has to begin with specific GPS coordinates. If, and it appears to be a very strong probability, Cheng used the measurements on Soler's Diagram, People's 101, then he started out at the wrong place -- about 100 feet too far west.
Conclusion
It's up to Dr. Cheng to identify which coordinates he used as the beginning point for the backtracking he did for Conner.
If he did in fact use the measurements in People's 101, then his Progressive Vector Diagram is even more flawed than we previously thought.
- He used a scientific method that could not produce consistent results
- He failed to familiarize himself with the recovery sites and the particular location of the bodies
- He mischaracterized the lower low tide as a negative MLLW
- He grossly exaggerated the wind conditions for April 12
- He falsely stated that the lower low tide coincided with winds averaging 20 knots
- He had Conner coming ashore at a water level far too low to wash him over the rock breakwater
Recently, in our discussion of People's 101 on the SII Yahoo Group, we noted that Soler represents the exact location where Conner was found to be 73 feet inland from the west breakwater. In his testimony, he gave the same information.
HARRIS: When you, in the diagram the 101, the location of where Conner is at, did you do a triangulation, or take two measurements that come together to where the location of his remains were found?
SOLER: Yes, we did.
HARRIS: And that would be, from that the shorter of the two boulder breakers, it was 73 feet from that location further, and then from the bottom or longer boulder breaker area, 24 feet?
SOLER: That's correct.
Soler also says that People's 101 matches the location he circled in People's 98A.
HARRIS: Then also on 98A, there is another circle with an, I believe it's either O-1 or G-1.
SOLER: 01.
HARRIS: The 01, is that the approximate location where Conner was found?
SOLER: Yes.
HARRIS: Does that correspond to the mark on your diagram where you placed Conner?
SOLER: Yes, it does.
JUDGE: Point it out with the pointer where Conner's body was found so the jury can see it.
SOLER: I'm pointing to the circle that's identified as 01 on this chart.HARRIS: Then also on 98A, there is another circle with an, I believe it's either O-1 or G-1.
SOLER: 01.
HARRIS: The 01, is that the approximate location where Conner was found?
SOLER: Yes.
HARRIS: Does that correspond to the mark on your diagram where you placed Conner?
SOLER: Yes, it does.
JUDGE: Point it out with the pointer where Conner's body was found so the jury can see it.
SOLER: I'm pointing to the circle that's identified as 01 on this chart.
The location circled in People's 98A is NOT the location identified by People's 101. For now, we refer readers to http://scottisinnocent.com/Research&Analysis/evidence/Conner/found.htm, but soon we will have an updated and more thorough analysis of People's 101.
Cheng's Progressive Vector Diagram
The question was asked, Did Dr. Cheng use People's 101 to chart his Progressive Vector Diagram? We did not call attention to this factor in our previous analysis of Cheng's Progressive Vector Diagram, so the question must be answered.
Unfortunately, Cheng was not asked specifically if he used Solar's measurements in People's 101, so we have to read between the lines.
This first excerpt is from David Harris' argument to Judge Delucchi during the brief Kelly-Frye hearing:
David Harris: There was two phases of his work. We aren't really interested in the first phase, but we believe the defense will probably ask about that. The Modesto Police Department contacted him before the bodies were found and said, based on the currents and all the different factors in the Bay, where would a body go based on where an estimate is of where it's placed. So he did some computer simulations for them based on that. After the bodies were recovered, he then went back and plotted, based on where they were recovered, going back, based on wind conditions, tide conditions, currents, trying to predict the most likely location where it's at. With regards to that, counsel's already elicited a lot of that core information through Detective Hendee, asking about the FBI searches and saying Didn't Dr. Cheng predict this particular location.
Under direct examination, Cheng volunteered that he knew the precise location where the bodies were found. (The State had also produced a similar diagram for Laci).
Ralph Cheng: I told them following here I could try. However, it involves similar uncertainty. That is now, when the body was spotted on shore at certain time, it does not imply the body arrived there at that time. Now, we have a little bit better situation that is not -- we know precisely where the body landed. Comparing to the previous scenario, that we were guessing where the body started traveling and at what time. In this case here now, we -- our knowledge has improved. That is now -- the bodies, we know precisely where the body landed. And -- but we didn't know when the body precisely landed at that location. Therefore, in order to reconstruct where the body started moving from, certain position in The Bay, still involves some uncertainty.
And David Harris confirms that he received this information from the detectives.
David Harris: Doctor, what we were talking about is when the detectives give you the information of where Laci and Conner's bodies are recovered, that is an area in the Richmond area over there by Brooks Island. Do you -- is that on the map up there?
>>>>>
Ralph Cheng: It's a combination of the above. Basically we obtain the wind information, time series. We reconstruct, now, based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Handbook, they give you certain formulas for certain given wind conditions. So how much actual water movement would be is not a windspeed- water movement here. And then you would reconstruct hour-by-hour here as if -- assuming the bodies started from here, you go backward rather than going forward here until certain -- to a certain time here.
Dr. Cheng's backward trail led him to specific GPS coordinates.
Mark Geragos: Thank you. And specifically when they asked you to do this, you, at that point, had the locations where the baby is found, and you got the location where Laci is found, and then you do some analysis, and you come up with this section right here with some GPS coordinates, correct?
Ralph Cheng: That is correct.
In order to end with specific GPS coordinates, one has to begin with specific GPS coordinates. If, and it appears to be a very strong probability, Cheng used the measurements on Soler's Diagram, People's 101, then he started out at the wrong place -- about 100 feet too far west.
Conclusion
It's up to Dr. Cheng to identify which coordinates he used as the beginning point for the backtracking he did for Conner.
If he did in fact use the measurements in People's 101, then his Progressive Vector Diagram is even more flawed than we previously thought.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
The SII Yahoo Group is closed
Well, it was worth a try, but the SII Group has been infested with vicious name-calling and personal attacks.
If these attacks were posted as messages, they could be easily dealt with. However, they are being sent to myself and to members via personal emails.
Unfortunately, Yahoo is not designed to prevent such activity, so for the sake of our decent, honest members, we are closing the SII Group.
If you are interested in our research and analysis, you can continue to follow this blog.
We will again allow comments to this Blog; moderated, of course.
If these attacks were posted as messages, they could be easily dealt with. However, they are being sent to myself and to members via personal emails.
Unfortunately, Yahoo is not designed to prevent such activity, so for the sake of our decent, honest members, we are closing the SII Group.
If you are interested in our research and analysis, you can continue to follow this blog.
We will again allow comments to this Blog; moderated, of course.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Science: The Good, the Better, and the Junk
In the case of Conner Peterson's age, we see all three qualities of science: the good, the better, and the junk.
The Good
For decades, doctors relied on the first day of the last menstrual period to determine gestational age. The wheel was developed to predict the expected date of delivery (EDC) from this LMP. The expected delivery date was figured to be 40 weeks, and 2 weeks was tacked on at each end as a safety zone. The LMP for Laci determined that Conner's due date was February 10.
The Better
Then along came the ultrasound, also referred to as sonogram. In the first half of the pregnancy, the following are used:
7-9 weeks, crown-rump length provides maximum accuracy for gestational age
12-20 weeks, biparietal diameter provides maximum accuracy for gestational age
In the last half of the pregnancy, after 20 weeks, the 4 long bones -- humerus, tibia, ulna, and femur -- provide maximal accuracy. Jeanty, in his studies, measures all 4 bones and averages them to derive the gestational age.
Laci had 2 ultrasounds. The 1st one, performed on July 16, determined that Conner was 1 day younger than indicated by the LPM, which put his due date at February 11. Because it was so close to the LPM due date, the doctors did not note a corrected EDC.
The second one was performed on September 24. Since one of the purposes of performing a second ultrasound is to correct the EDC if necessary, Dr. Yip took 4 measurements:
Abdominal circumference (AC) 134 = 18w3d ± 14 days
Head circumference (HC) 163 = 19w0d ± 11 days
Biparietal diameter (BPD) 45 = 19w4d ± 10 days
Femur length (FL) 32 = 19w4d ± 6 days
He averaged them out and settled on 19w2d. This made Conner 6 days younger than the 1st ultrasound, and 7 days younger than the LMP. Dr. Yip noted February 16 as the corrected EDC on Laci's chart. In November and December, the notation for gestational age for each visit corresponds to corrected EDC.
Dr. Yip's conclusion is supported by fetal biometry studies. 10 studies produced 17 gestational ages for Conner, and only 1 of them confirmed the LPM and 1st ultrasound gestational ages. Only 1 out of 17. That one measurement was Jeanty's femur measurement. 3 other measurements by Jeanty produced gestational ages even younger than Yip's 19w2d, by as much as 8 days.
The LPM put Conner at 33w2d on December 24. The 1st ultrasound put him at 33w1d on December 24. The 2nd ultrasound put him at 32w2d on December 24. Jeanty's femur measurement (2nd ultrasound) put him at 33w1d.
Every eye witness that saw Conner when he was found described him as full term or 9-month, including Dr. Peterson who performed the autopsy. The one measurement that Peterson did aged Conner at 9 months.
Dr. Galloway, a forensic anthropologist, performed some measurements to determine Conner's age. Based on the three large bones (3 of the 4 that Jeanty recommends for the last half of the pregnancy), Conner's gestational age was 35-36 weeks.
35-36 weeks compared to these gestational ages on December 24:
LMP: 33w2d
1st ultrasound: 33w1d
Jeanty's femur (second ultrasound): 33w1d
2nd ultrasound: 32w2d
If you tack on the 2-week deviation, you come down to 33 weeks. But, don't you also have to tack the deviation on to the other measurements?
For example, the 1st ultrasound is considered accurate +/- 7 days. So, if you are going to use the bottom of the deviation to arrive at 33, don't you have to subtract 7 days from the 1st ultrasound age, making it 32w1d? Seems like that would be good science, if you use a deviation at one end of the spectrum, you have to use it at the other end also. Or you end up comparing apples to oranges.
But it is not reasonable to tack the standard deviation on, simply because every eye witness that saw Conner described him as a full-term or 9-month baby. If we were talking about the difference between 36 weeks and full term, the differences might not have been that noticeable, but a 33-week baby is noticeably different in appearance than a full-term baby. A 33-week baby, is at least 5 weeks premature, if you take 38-42 as full-term.
Even if you use Jeanty's gestational age for the femur on the 2nd ultrasound, you still have Conner too old to have died on December 24 -- 35.1 weeks from Sherwood compared to 33w1d -- that's a 2-week difference. And if you tack on the 2-week deviation to Sherwood, to derive 33, you also have to tack on the deviation to Jeanty.
The Junk
Enter Dr. Devore.
Devore ignored Galloway's measurements. She is a forensic anthropologist, trained in determining the ages of dead people, he is not.
Devore ignored Dr. Yip, who was Laci's doctor. Devore was not one of Laci's doctors.
Devore ignored the eye witnesses who saw Conner. He never saw Conner.
Devore ignored Jeanty, who says that the biparietal measurement is the most accurate from 12-20 weeks.
Devore ignored 16 fetal measurements from 10 fetal biometry studies that put Conner at a younger age than both the LMP and the 1st ultrasound.
Devore ignored 3 out of the 4 measurements per Jeanty's studies -- all 3 which produced younger ages for Conner.
Devore used an ultrasound method never before used to determine fetal age -- he took a bone that had been removed from a dead fetus and compared it to the measurements of the fetus when it was alive and still in the mother's womb. His method has never been subjected to peer review.
The femur bone he used had been out of the body from April 14-February 2, 9 1/2 months. We don't know under what conditions it was stored. We don't know how much it dried. Have you ever heard the expression, dry as a bone, or bone-dry? There's a reason for that expression. We would know if it shrunk any if Devore had bothered to measure it the same way Galloway did. Then we would know with certainty if it was still the same length as when it was removed from Conner's body. But, he didn't do any of the quality control checks that good science does.
Devore ignored the other 2 large bones, the humerus and the tibia, that were available to him, which Galloway had to do her measurements. Jeanty says 4 large bones must be used and averaged, that only one bone is bound to produce error. If he would have used 3 of the 4, then averaged them, that would have been much closer to what Jeanty did in his studies. But he didn't do that, or at least he didn't admit he did.
Devore's first calculation was December 25 -- which he said was wrong because he "counted on his fingers." Good scientists don't count on their fingers when doing "expert opinion" reports for a court of law when a man's life is on the line.
Devore may be good at his profession, but he used junk science to help convict Scott Peterson. If Devore can't tell the difference between good science and junk science, then he shouldn't be practicing medicine. If he can tell the difference, and did it anyway, shouldn't he receive the same punishment he helped to impose on Scott? At the very least, he should serve the same amount of prison time, in the same prison and under the same conditions, as Scott ends up serving before he is exonerated. Scott has already been in jail/prison for 5 years.
And what about the added pain he is going to cause the family when they are forced to admit that Scott was not responsible for Laci's abduction and he did not murder Laci and Conner. Whatever hell Sharon Rocha and others went through the first time around, it is going to be even worse the second time.
________________________
We are no longer accepting comments on the Blog. To respond to this article, please use our SII Yahoo! Group, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SIIgroup/message/462
The Good
For decades, doctors relied on the first day of the last menstrual period to determine gestational age. The wheel was developed to predict the expected date of delivery (EDC) from this LMP. The expected delivery date was figured to be 40 weeks, and 2 weeks was tacked on at each end as a safety zone. The LMP for Laci determined that Conner's due date was February 10.
The Better
Then along came the ultrasound, also referred to as sonogram. In the first half of the pregnancy, the following are used:
7-9 weeks, crown-rump length provides maximum accuracy for gestational age
12-20 weeks, biparietal diameter provides maximum accuracy for gestational age
In the last half of the pregnancy, after 20 weeks, the 4 long bones -- humerus, tibia, ulna, and femur -- provide maximal accuracy. Jeanty, in his studies, measures all 4 bones and averages them to derive the gestational age.
Laci had 2 ultrasounds. The 1st one, performed on July 16, determined that Conner was 1 day younger than indicated by the LPM, which put his due date at February 11. Because it was so close to the LPM due date, the doctors did not note a corrected EDC.
The second one was performed on September 24. Since one of the purposes of performing a second ultrasound is to correct the EDC if necessary, Dr. Yip took 4 measurements:
Abdominal circumference (AC) 134 = 18w3d ± 14 days
Head circumference (HC) 163 = 19w0d ± 11 days
Biparietal diameter (BPD) 45 = 19w4d ± 10 days
Femur length (FL) 32 = 19w4d ± 6 days
He averaged them out and settled on 19w2d. This made Conner 6 days younger than the 1st ultrasound, and 7 days younger than the LMP. Dr. Yip noted February 16 as the corrected EDC on Laci's chart. In November and December, the notation for gestational age for each visit corresponds to corrected EDC.
Dr. Yip's conclusion is supported by fetal biometry studies. 10 studies produced 17 gestational ages for Conner, and only 1 of them confirmed the LPM and 1st ultrasound gestational ages. Only 1 out of 17. That one measurement was Jeanty's femur measurement. 3 other measurements by Jeanty produced gestational ages even younger than Yip's 19w2d, by as much as 8 days.
The LPM put Conner at 33w2d on December 24. The 1st ultrasound put him at 33w1d on December 24. The 2nd ultrasound put him at 32w2d on December 24. Jeanty's femur measurement (2nd ultrasound) put him at 33w1d.
Every eye witness that saw Conner when he was found described him as full term or 9-month, including Dr. Peterson who performed the autopsy. The one measurement that Peterson did aged Conner at 9 months.
Dr. Galloway, a forensic anthropologist, performed some measurements to determine Conner's age. Based on the three large bones (3 of the 4 that Jeanty recommends for the last half of the pregnancy), Conner's gestational age was 35-36 weeks.
35-36 weeks compared to these gestational ages on December 24:
LMP: 33w2d
1st ultrasound: 33w1d
Jeanty's femur (second ultrasound): 33w1d
2nd ultrasound: 32w2d
If you tack on the 2-week deviation, you come down to 33 weeks. But, don't you also have to tack the deviation on to the other measurements?
For example, the 1st ultrasound is considered accurate +/- 7 days. So, if you are going to use the bottom of the deviation to arrive at 33, don't you have to subtract 7 days from the 1st ultrasound age, making it 32w1d? Seems like that would be good science, if you use a deviation at one end of the spectrum, you have to use it at the other end also. Or you end up comparing apples to oranges.
But it is not reasonable to tack the standard deviation on, simply because every eye witness that saw Conner described him as a full-term or 9-month baby. If we were talking about the difference between 36 weeks and full term, the differences might not have been that noticeable, but a 33-week baby is noticeably different in appearance than a full-term baby. A 33-week baby, is at least 5 weeks premature, if you take 38-42 as full-term.
Even if you use Jeanty's gestational age for the femur on the 2nd ultrasound, you still have Conner too old to have died on December 24 -- 35.1 weeks from Sherwood compared to 33w1d -- that's a 2-week difference. And if you tack on the 2-week deviation to Sherwood, to derive 33, you also have to tack on the deviation to Jeanty.
The Junk
Enter Dr. Devore.
Devore ignored Galloway's measurements. She is a forensic anthropologist, trained in determining the ages of dead people, he is not.
Devore ignored Dr. Yip, who was Laci's doctor. Devore was not one of Laci's doctors.
Devore ignored the eye witnesses who saw Conner. He never saw Conner.
Devore ignored Jeanty, who says that the biparietal measurement is the most accurate from 12-20 weeks.
Devore ignored 16 fetal measurements from 10 fetal biometry studies that put Conner at a younger age than both the LMP and the 1st ultrasound.
Devore ignored 3 out of the 4 measurements per Jeanty's studies -- all 3 which produced younger ages for Conner.
Devore used an ultrasound method never before used to determine fetal age -- he took a bone that had been removed from a dead fetus and compared it to the measurements of the fetus when it was alive and still in the mother's womb. His method has never been subjected to peer review.
The femur bone he used had been out of the body from April 14-February 2, 9 1/2 months. We don't know under what conditions it was stored. We don't know how much it dried. Have you ever heard the expression, dry as a bone, or bone-dry? There's a reason for that expression. We would know if it shrunk any if Devore had bothered to measure it the same way Galloway did. Then we would know with certainty if it was still the same length as when it was removed from Conner's body. But, he didn't do any of the quality control checks that good science does.
Devore ignored the other 2 large bones, the humerus and the tibia, that were available to him, which Galloway had to do her measurements. Jeanty says 4 large bones must be used and averaged, that only one bone is bound to produce error. If he would have used 3 of the 4, then averaged them, that would have been much closer to what Jeanty did in his studies. But he didn't do that, or at least he didn't admit he did.
Devore's first calculation was December 25 -- which he said was wrong because he "counted on his fingers." Good scientists don't count on their fingers when doing "expert opinion" reports for a court of law when a man's life is on the line.
Devore may be good at his profession, but he used junk science to help convict Scott Peterson. If Devore can't tell the difference between good science and junk science, then he shouldn't be practicing medicine. If he can tell the difference, and did it anyway, shouldn't he receive the same punishment he helped to impose on Scott? At the very least, he should serve the same amount of prison time, in the same prison and under the same conditions, as Scott ends up serving before he is exonerated. Scott has already been in jail/prison for 5 years.
And what about the added pain he is going to cause the family when they are forced to admit that Scott was not responsible for Laci's abduction and he did not murder Laci and Conner. Whatever hell Sharon Rocha and others went through the first time around, it is going to be even worse the second time.
________________________
We are no longer accepting comments on the Blog. To respond to this article, please use our SII Yahoo! Group, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SIIgroup/message/462
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)