This is a reprint of Part II of an editorial, written by Carey-Ann Sandell, that is featured on SII. It gives a comprehensive explanation of Dr. March’s testimony.
___________
Understanding the Importance of Dr. March’s Testimony
GERAGOS: That the measurements, all five for five, were younger? Made the baby younger, correct?
MARCH: Yes, sir.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GERAGOS: And that at this point if you map out this and you use whatever -- all the scientific data at your -- that's available, that the earliest date is December 29th?
MARCH: Yes, sir.
~~ Testimony of Dr. March / Re-Direct ~~
I chose to start with the above quote from testimony because like the majority of the important pieces of this case, the jury either ignored the facts being presented or completely missed the point being made. In fairness to the jury, I believe they were saturated with far more information than they would have ever been able to consume. I believe that was the Prosecutors game plan -
If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, you baffle them with bull.
~~ Ron Grantski / comment to the media ~~
The idea was to give the jury so much information, whether important to proving their case or not, so they didn’t pay attention to the details, or spend too much time analyzing all the information they were given. So that the facts that didn’t favor their case against Scott got lost between Laci’s grocery list from December 23rd, and a receptionist at the medical clinic who called in sick the day after Christmas.
GERAGOS: Were you really sick the day after Christmas?
RAMOS: No.
GERAGOS: "No" you weren't sick?
RAMOS: No.
JUDGE: No other questions?
GERAGOS: I was going to ask her why she's here, but it's okay. Welcome to San Mateo, and bye.
~~ Testimony of Corina Ramos - Receptionist OB/Gyn ~~
I believe that Dr. March lost the jury’s attention, if he ever had it – when he became flustered because of being badgered by the Prosecution regarding a typo in his original report to Geragos. When all he was really asking was for the same courtesy extended by the jury for Dr. Devore’s 2-day error in his report.
MARCH: Why not be -- sir, it was in error by two days. I would like everybody to cut me the same two-days slack that was cut Doctor DeVore, who moved his date -- the date of Conner's death from the 25th to the 23rd. I'm sorry, it was an error. I made a mistake. And if we make it June 9th, then we have a death date of Conner of the 29th. It's New Year's Eve if it's June 11th. I'm sorry, I made an error.
~~Testimony of Dr. March – Cross ~~
“Dr. March was the doctor/lawyer’s favorite witness—the guy who did a meltdown on the stand. The 11 of us almost fell off our chairs when he said that. We all gave (March) zeros. He lost all credibility when he asked us to cut him some slack.”
---John Guinasso – Juror- comment to the media--
I also believe that jury latched on to the same belief that Harris seemed to have –that Dr. March's whole conclusion that Conner couldn’t have died before December 29, 2002 was based on the “assumption” that Laci didn’t find out until June 9th that she was pregnant. During Harris’s cross of Dr. March he hammered on that fact over and over and over again, trying his best to damage Dr. March’s credibility and disregard his conclusion.
HARRIS: So using that information from her, you use -- it's absolutely essential to your June 9th determination of all these facts, right?
MARCH: No.
HARRIS: So what you just told us about relying on her information, it's not something that you used?
MARCH: No. You just used -- put the word "all" in there. And "all" is not a word that -- there is pieces. "All" is not -- I use more than simply a pregnancy test.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HARRIS: So, again, going back to what the question was. That information is crucial for your opinion going from this June 9th date, changing all the other dates that you have been telling us about, right?
MARCH: It's one of many pieces of information
~~Testimony of Dr. March – Cross ~~
Dr. March’s testimony discussed the importance of when Laci is believed to have received a positive home pregnancy test in relation to when it is most likely she conceived Conner -- a key piece of information that can be used in helping determine Connor’s fetus age at the time of his death.
HARRIS: Well, does a pregnant -- home pregnancy test tell you when you conceived?
MARCH: If it's negative yesterday, and negative the day before, and positive today, you are pretty darn good, yes, sir.
~~ Testimony of Dr. March / Cross ~~
During Dr. March’s testimony other important information was offered to the jury, that I believe was lost on them:
-The importance of why Dr. Yip adjusted the due date, based on the second ultrasound results even had Laci been able to carry to full-term.
-His conclusion did NOT rest on when Laci was assumed to have received her positive home pregnancy test on June 9th.
-All the experts who testified to Conner’s age, agreed to the age range.
-Dr. Devore’s - Prosecutor’s hired expert - results didn’t fit any of the other scientific information provided.
Positive Results:
I noted while reading Dr. March's testimony that he not only based his "assumption" that Laci first positive HPT was on June 9th, on the testimony of Rene Tomlinson, but from transcripts of interviews from several of Laci's friends and family. During 2nd re-direct, Geragos mentioned that Sharon Rocha, Jackie Peterson and Stacey Boyer all mention in police statements, that June 9th is the day Laci found out she was pregnant. Problem is that this was never testified to, so it never became evidence allowed during the trial.
Although no one will ever admit that Laci had confided that June 9th is the day she took a home pregnancy test, and received a positive result, it becomes clear during the questioning of Dr. March that there are several people that knew exactly when and how many tests Laci took. Yet the only person to testify that Laci announced her pregnancy that day was one friend, not even her own mother or sister shared that information for the court record – was that strategy on the part of the Prosecutors? And if so, why didn’t the defense ask the questions that would have made this information evidence?
Harris used the missing information to draw attention away from the facts that couldn’t be disputed, such as Laci’s adjusted due date based on Conner’s measurements during the second ultrasound and that she was only 32w a day before she went missing. He made sure the jury knew that there was no notation of a home pregnancy test and that it was “only” an assumption on Dr. March’s part, even though it was a fairly educated and experience based assumption.
HARRIS: Where in the medical records does it talk about Laci Peterson having a pregnancy test on June 9th?
MARCH: I'm not sure that -- the answer to that question is no place. But that's not the question asked of me by Mr. Geragos
HARRIS: Well, okay. Let's go through this then. So nowhere in any of the medical information, would you agree, is there any reference to there being a pregnancy test on June 9th.
MARCH: Change the words from medical information to medical records. The answer to -- I can give you, it's not in it medical records, the information. But the medical information that a pregnancy test was reported.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HARRIS: So you are making an assumption to form a medical opinion; isn't that a fact?
MARCH: Based on 30 years of being a fertility doctor, and knowing how excited females get with a positive pregnancy test, that's pretty good assumption, yes, sir.
~~Testimony of Dr. March – Cross ~~
Although it’s not marked on her medical records, there was a 7:00 a.m. call to family and friends to back the existence of a home pregnancy test with a positive results happening on June 9th, along with the unarguable fact that there was an adjustment to her due date.
GERAGOS: Okay. And what year -- even if you take that out of the mix, somebody still has to account for the fact that Dr. Yip did the six day correction, right?
MARCH: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: That the measurements, all five for five, were younger? Made the baby younger, correct?
MARCH: Yes, sir.
~~ Testimony of Dr. March / Re-Direct ~~
Even had June 9th never been mentioned – ever, to anyone - the fact that Dr. Yip adjusted her due date by 6 days still had to be accounted for. Instead the Prosecutors downplayed the adjustment and the jury seems to have completely ignored it.
Dr. March didn’t need to add the “assumption” of the home pregnancy test taken on June 9th to come to his conclusion; it was just nice to have since it corroborated what was already documented as fact.
Adjusted Due Date:
Although nowhere on Laci’s medical chart/file is it noted when she took a home pregnancy test, the adjusted due date is very clearly noted, adjusted from February 10th to February 16th by Laci’s attending Doctor, Dr. Yip. The same 6-day difference that adding in Laci’s June 9th positive home pregnancy makes to the equation.
“…….Doctor Yip had to be so, compelled he had -- that he tacked on six more days to the due date. I mean let's face it. He could have done the scan and said I'm happy, but he changed it. There was compelling medical information, four measurements, or five, whatever the number was, none of which was close to 20 weeks two days. In fact, one of them went to 18 weeks zero days. That is 16 days away.”
~~ snipped from Dr. March’s testimony during cross ~~
Why did the jury so easily ignore the importance of Laci’s adjusted due date? An adjustment made long before she went missing. An adjustment that made Conner 6 days younger than her Doctor’s previously figured using the first day of Laci’s last menstrual cycle.
Dr. March and the other experts testified as to Conner’s “age” – and all with exception of Dr. Devore stated in their testimony that there is no scientific way to determine Conner’s age without allowing a “range in age." Simply put, no matter which method or formula is used to determine the age of a fetus, it will never be exact to the day or even within two days.
According to the first ultrasound done, Conner’s fetus measurements fell within the expected range, 10w1d - with “range of age” allowed of plus or minus 5 days.
MARCH: If you could please take the ultrasound -- the next image, the image that's off the -- yes, please. So here is a measurement of the baby and -- which was done on -- on July -- in July, on -- on July 16th. And crown rump length, 32 millimeters. So a caliper was put here on the crown, here on the rump, 32 millimeters. And it is ten weeks one day, okay? And then we drop below ten weeks one day, plus or minus five days.
GERAGOS: What does that mean?
MARCH: That if you have a baby who you measure crown rump length of 32 millimeters, you're going to say that that baby is -- by ultrasound, that's an ultrasound done by the nurse practitioner in their office -- of ten weeks one day. But I can't really lock it in to 71 days because when I have measured babies that were 32 millimeters, some of them were ten weeks and six days, plus five days, and some of them were younger by five days, nine three.
~~Testimony of Dr. March / Direct ~~
During the trial Dr. Devore tried to state that the first ultrasound measurement is considered “gold standard” because there is less room for error when dealing with millimeters. It should be noted that only the crown rump length is available for measurement and that Laci’s was done after what is consider “peak time”. Ideally the first ultrasound is to be done when the fetus is between 7 and 9 weeks. Even with these measurements being considered “gold standard” – there will always be a variation of 5 days either way.
GERAGOS: Gold standard is seven to nine weeks?
MARCH: Yes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GERAGOS: Okay. So you've got one ultrasound that's not in the gold standard time in the seven to nine weeks, right?
MARCH: Right.
GERAGOS: And that says you've got plus or minus five days, right?
MARCH: Yes, sir.
~~ Testimony of Dr. March / Re-Direct ~~
A second ultrasound is standard when the pregnancy is further along - allowing the Doctor to ensure that the child is growing at an expected rate, and that there are no physical concerns with the fetus. In fact, due to the fact that not all women ovulate as assumed on the 14th day of their cycles, it is recommended that a follow up ultrasound be done to confirm the earlier findings.
Many women do not ovulate at around day 14, so findings after a single scan should always be interpreted with caution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The timing of a positive pregnancy test may also be helpful in this regard to assess the possible dates of conception. A positive pregnancy test 3 weeks previously for example, would indicate a gestational age of at least 7 weeks. Such information would be useful against the interpretation of the scans
~~ http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/ ~~
*Fetus bone measurements charts also available at this webpage
During Laci’s second ultrasound, Dr. Yip noted that all the measurements he took, indicated that Connor was at the younger end of the 5-day “range of age”. So much so that he adjusted the due date, for the safety and well being of Conner should Laci have gone past her due date. Based on the fact that every measurement Dr. Yip took during the second ultrasound - not one fit with a fetus age of 20w 2d - but rather all were in the range of 18w3d to 19w 4d.
GERAGOS: Okay. So did Dr. Yip do something on the date of the second ultrasound to change this 20 week two day age?
MARCH: Yes, sir. Because every one of his measurements done that day, the biparietal diameter, 19,4, plus or minus ten days; head circumference, 19 even, plus or minus eleven days; abdominal circumference of 134 would be -- that was not the one entered, but the 134 would be 18 weeks three days. The femur length, plus or minus 14days. Femur length of 32, 19,4, plus or minus six. Because every measurement jumped away from twenty, two -- 20 weeks two days, to a range of 18,3 to 19,4.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GERAGOS: We're talking your attention when we measure the baby at this 9/24 date on the second ultrasound, all five measurements are less than what we would expect them to be?
MARCH: That's correct, yes, sir.
~~ Testimony of Dr. March / Direct ~~
This adjustment, although down played by the Prosecution and ignored by the jury, is a key piece of evidence that, long before it became important in a murder trial, Conner was determined to be 6 days younger. Had Laci not been murdered, and allowed to deliver Conner this information would have been considered important in determining when Laci was “post-date” and an induction would be considered. No Doctor wants to perform an unnecessary induction, causing possible strain on the baby and a possibly longer, more painful labor for the mother. Dr. Yip determined that Laci wasn’t due until February 16th, this was noted on her medical records, so that if Laci was to go past her original due date - she wouldn't of been consider "overdue" until after the adjusted due date.
MARCH: Was younger than should -- than would have been estimated by last menstrual period. And therefore Dr. Yip said I'm not going to expect to deliver this baby as a due date December -- February 10th, I'm going to push it back to February 16th. And the importance of that is if someone goes post-dates, overdue, by a week, so what? By two weeks you're going to get nervous that there may be a problem with the baby. Therefore at about two weeks you would begin an induction. Well, there can be complications with inducing labor, so Dr. Yip said No, no, no, I don't want to think that she may be over two weeks post-dates on February --
GERAGOS: 10th -- 24th?
MARCH: 24th, instead it's going to be March 2nd -- unless there was a leap year day or something. Leap year or something. So he has pushed it six days, so he's not going to get caught doing an unnecessary and potentially dangerous induction. And all of the information was so compelling, coming away from twenty, two, that he made the move, made the shift.
~~Testimony of Dr. March / Direct ~~
"All of the information was so compelling" – this statement should have been worth drawing the juries attention to. That all the measurements and information gathered during the second ultrasound, indicated that Conner was 6 days younger. Dr. Yip wanted to avoid the "unnecessary and potentially dangerous induction," not convince a jury of anything. This was an completely unbiased adjustment of a due date long before it became the key piece of evidence to prove Scott's innocence.
What are the risks of induction? Induced contractions may be more powerful, and have a longer duration than non-induced labor, so they may lead to a more painful labor. This increases the chance that pain medication will be used, with the possibility of risks related to the pain medication. The longer, stronger contractions can interrupt blood flow and oxygen to the fetus, and lead to drops in baby’s heart rate, so continuous monitoring is needed.
The induction consent form for a Seattle hospital states that risks may include “a longer labor time, a higher chance of forceps and/or vacuum use during delivery, a higher chance of a caesarean section delivery, more bleeding or infection, a longer hospital stay and longer length of recovery.” For first time labors, inductions increase the risk of caesarean by two to three times. (transitiontoparenthood.com)
Experts Agree
A common theme during the cross examination of Dr. March was trying to get him to admit that his conclusions didn't agree with other experts that examined the body of Conner. No matter how many times and how many ways Harris asked him, Dr. March always stood his ground that he was not or had never questioned the conclusion of Dr. Allison Galloway’s bone measurements, or Dr. Peterson’s observations during the autopsy. He didn’t even dispute Dr. Devore’s femur bone measurement, he only stated that Dr. Devore’s conclusion was scientifically impossible.
HARRIS: So your entire analysis is based on that particular piece of information, because it's different than what everybody else has, right?
MARCH: No, sir.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HARRIS: Well, aren't you saying that the date of conception is different than what they all saw?
MARCH: Doctor Endraki, Doctor Tow-Der, Doctor Yip, and Doctor DeVore never estimated a date of conception.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HARRIS: All right. We'll go back through that then. Is your date of conception different than everyone else's?
MARCH: I am the -- I believe -- I do not recall any information offered as a date of conception by anyone except the comment by Doctor DeVore, that you never know unless you were there.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HARRIS: And then you've read the testimony of the doctors, what they were saying And so, in terms of the conception, your determination of the date of conception is different than anybody else that made that determination, isn't it?
MARCH: No.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HARRIS: Are you telling us that Doctor DeVore's measurements of that bone in water is less accurate because it doesn't have any of those distortions that you find in a living human body?
MARCH: Oh, no. Absolutely not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HARRIS: Now, with regards to this range that you keep talking about, Dr. DeVore said that there was something different about the ranges in his determinations, right?
MARCH: Dr. DeVore, as I understand, gave no ranges. He gave three absolutes.
HARRIS: Well, would not three days be a range?
MARCH: No. No, sir. See, that's -- Dr. DeVore did not give three days. What Dr. DeVore did is he said that Jeanty's formula is everything. So if I measure 64, I get this date. I measure 64.5, I get this date. I measure 65, I get that date. If he had measured 65 three times, he would have gotten only one date. He doesn't give a range. He's locked into this incredibly diverse biologic system, and he gives one day. He is singularly the only person who comes up with a one day. It -- it doesn't make sense.
~~ Testimony of Dr. March / Cross ~~
The point that Dr. March tried so hard to get across is that according to all the scientific information provided to him, through Laci’s medical records while the progress of the pregnancy was being monitored, and through examination of Conner’s remains – that Conner at the time of death was anywhere between 33w and full-term. At the time of Laci’s last prenatal appointment on December 23rd, Conner was determined to be 32w - according to her medical records.
In fact Dr. Galloway’s finding determined that youngest she could measure Conner’s bones at were 35w1d, and only by adding in the “age range” could she get it as low as 33w.
HARRIS: So you would agree that Dr. Galloway is in a far better position to give an opinion about her estimate of bones and the date of the death based on her examination than you are?
MARCH: I didn't know that she gave a date. I read her information. She did a broad range of the age of the fetus based on the measurement of the femur, the humerus, the tibia, and I think the bones in the head. I thought that she measured those. And, in reading her testimony, she measured all of these bones, and her testimony and report -- and she plugged them in to a variety of formulae and gave a range of 36 to 38 -- well, with Sherwood, 35.1, but then -- and this is the interpretation of the forensic anthropologist, which, as you rightly stated, I am not; she understands that you need variation, and she moves two weeks on either side.
~~ Testimony of Dr. March / Cross ~~
Dr. Devore
As is the norm during trials, the Peterson case being no different, a key piece of evidence becomes a battle of the experts. The Peterson case pitched Dr. Devore’s testimony against Dr. March’s testimony. One concluding that Conner died on December 23/24, 2002, supporting the DA’s case; and the later determining he couldn’t have died before December 29, 2005, supporting the defense’s stance that their client, Scott Peterson couldn’t have possibly committed the crime he was being charged with since he was under constant surveillance beginning December 25.
Both Doctors are very well educated, greatly respected and highly knowledgeable in each of their chosen fields of expertise.
Dr. Devore:
-Physician specializing in high risk obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine
-Consultant for last several years
-Sees about 6000 patients a year
-Estimated – preformed over 75,000 ultrasound examinations during his career
-Over 100 “peer-approved” articles published
-Written “many” chapter in over 25 textbooks
-Spoken at “literally hundreds” of educational meetings for physicians around the world
-Over 90% of his work is related to ultrasounds in fetal medicine.
Dr. March:
-Physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology.
-Subspecialty is reproductive endocrinology and infertility
-In practice since 1966
-Estimated – preformed about 35,000 ultrasound examinations
-Published over 110 paper in scientific journals
-Written over 80 textbook chapters
-Videotapes / Audiotapes
-Teaching Awards from the University of Southern California
-Named “The Best Doctor in America” in textbooks – the only Doctor in the country named in both reproductive endocrinology and infertility and reproductive surgery.
During Dr. March’s testimony he maintained his respect for Dr. Devore and his expertise. He never once questions Dr. Devore’s measurements of Conner’s femur bone, or the method that was done to acquire the measurements.
HARRIS: So, in fact, you believe that Doctor Devore is an expert, very good doctor in the field that he practices in?
MARCH: I will tell you that absolutely, if you are talking about congenital anomalies, and mid trimester and late mid second trimester and third trimester ultrasound examinations, Doctor DeVore is absolutely excellent, yes, sir.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HARRIS: Are you telling us that Doctor DeVore's measurements of that bone in water is less accurate because it doesn't have any of those distortions that you find in a living human body?
MARCH: Oh, no. Absolutely not.
~~ Testimony of Dr. March / Cross ~~
The following are just a few key problems with Dr. Devore’s conclusion as testified by Dr. March:
It is scientifically impossible to narrow a fetus “age” to within a day. Dr. Devore testified that according to his measurements only ONE day of death was possible – being December 24, 2002 – since the other two dates fall on dates that Laci was known to be alive and well. According to every single method of determining the age of a fetus there is ALWAYS “range of age." Why did Dr. Devore leave this standard procedure out of his calculations?
Dr. Devore used the misconception often used when determining the age of a fetus, that all woman ovulate on the 14th day of her menstrual cycle. Although this is the standard method, it certainly is not the most accurate. The medical information provided in this case certainly suggests that Laci did not conceive as per the misconception but rather up to 6 days later. At no point did Dr. Devore conclude an estimated time of conception, nor did he attempt to, even though as an expert in fetal-medicine he should of known that was an important piece of the equation.
Dr. Devore completely dismissed the conclusions of Laci’s attending Doctor, the same Doctor who preformed and analyzed the second ultrasound. Dr. Devore clearly ignores the adjustment to her due date stated in her medical chart, and the note on December 23, 2002 – that Laci was 32 weeks pregnant.
It is very clear that the difference in the battle of the experts is that Dr. March used all the information gathered as it pertained to the age of Conner before and after his death. He took into account all the notes made on her medical charts, both ultrasounds performed on Conner, police statements of family and friends regarding when Laci found out she was pregnant, the fact that there were several tests done before the positive one – which confirms the adjustment made to her due date.
MARCH: No. That is a different question. The evidence that I have supporting multiple pregnancy tests came from a number of interviews of various friends of Mrs. Peterson that were carried out in pieces of information that were shared with me by Mr. Geragos' office when he sent me a plethora of information.
~~ Testimony of Dr. March / Cross ~~
Dr. March testified that all the evidence gathered by those that examined the remains of Conner and took bone measurements, including Dr. Devore, all agreed that the at the time of Conner’s death he could not have been younger than 33 weeks (at the extreme end of “range of age”), which should have created a problem to the Prosecutor’s case against Scott since Laci was determined by all accounts before her disappearance to be only 32 weeks.
How did the jury miss the importance of what Dr. March testified to? Why did they dismiss his whole testimony based on one moment of frustration? Did they not notice that Dr. Devore – the Prosecutor’s hired gun – left out key facts to come to his conclusion? That had Dr. Devore used the unbiased adjustment to Laci’s due date it would have been devastating to the case against Scott. Even if he had added in the STANDARD “range of age” to his calculation – would have proved damaging to the case against Scott. Or had the jurors already made up their minds by the time Dr. March delivered his compelling testimony??! What ever the reason, the jury missed – the importance of Dr. March’s testimony!
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Friday, June 6, 2008
Rocha v. Peterson -- Update
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)