Another book about Laci Peterson has hit the market -- a 33 pager published by Rose Dog Books and selling for just $5 if you get the digital download version.
The author is anonymously called the Scribe, who according to the Publisher is a very old lady, and alleges that she has had visions since childhood. When Laci disappeared, she had visions of Laci, but tried to ignore them. Ultimately, Laci prevailed upon her to write her (Laci's) story.
The story Laci tells blatantly says Scott is innocent and 3 other men are guilty, but provides absolutely no details at all to help uncover the identity of these three men or produce evidence to prove they were the ones responsible for Laci's death and subsequent burial in the Bay.
Scribe does say Laci's abduction was a case of mistaken identity, but she does not say who she was mistaken for, except that she was called by the name "Missy Reporter." And Scribe indicates the 3 men expected to get $25,000 for this "Missy Reporter."
A few of the details are questionable. Scribe says Laci wore the same clothes she wore the night before to go for her walk in the park (those weren't exactly dog-walking clothes), and was abducted by 2 men in a van in the park. I'm not quite sure how that van could be driving in the park, but that is what she says. McKenzie seems to be quite at ease with what is going on, jumps into the van to be with Laci, but the two men shove him out a little bit later, in a small puddle of water, which presumably is how his leash got dirty. The other detail that is questionable is that the van is a white van painted brown with a paint that washes away in a car wash, which they go to right after abducting her.
Is the Scribe sincerely and honestly relating visions she received about Laci? Or is she pulling a scam?
Regardless, there is absolutely nothing in the story that can prove Scott Peterson innocent or anyone else guilty.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
More on the Cheng Controversy
If you followed the exchange of comments between myself and WAH, you know that he has defended Cheng by assuming that Cheng meant 40 kilometers, not 40 knots when describing the wind on April 12, 2003. WAH pointed out that the abbreviation for knots is kn, and the abbreviation for kilometers is km, and so a typo explains the mistake.
Is it possible that a simple typographical error could have caused the mistake? That's a question that most definitely must be answered, so I did some research.
Court Reporters use a stenotype machine, which does not have a regular typewriter/computer keyboard. I found a picture of the machine and a layout of its keys. I was quite amazed to find that the keys do not include the "m" and the "n".
The article explained that different theories are used to form the words, and the Court Reporters can also create their own shorthand for commonly used words.
However, with the "m" and the "n" being absent from the keyboard, the abbreviations "kn" and "km" could not be used in those forms. To form the abbreviation kn, the court reporter has to key K for the inital K and PB for the final n. To form the abbreviation km, the court reporter has to key K for the initial K and PL for the final m.
I've included a visual from a website, which incidentally is the same article that appears under this subject on Wikipedia, Answers.com, and a couple other websites. The article gives much more information.
If you wonder why some letters appear twice on the keyboard, it's because the keys to the left of the * are used to generate initial consonants, and the keys to the right are used for final consonants.
WAH, if you have information that shows a stenotype machine that does have the m and n keys, please post it.
Is it possible that a simple typographical error could have caused the mistake? That's a question that most definitely must be answered, so I did some research.
Court Reporters use a stenotype machine, which does not have a regular typewriter/computer keyboard. I found a picture of the machine and a layout of its keys. I was quite amazed to find that the keys do not include the "m" and the "n".
The article explained that different theories are used to form the words, and the Court Reporters can also create their own shorthand for commonly used words.
However, with the "m" and the "n" being absent from the keyboard, the abbreviations "kn" and "km" could not be used in those forms. To form the abbreviation kn, the court reporter has to key K for the inital K and PB for the final n. To form the abbreviation km, the court reporter has to key K for the initial K and PL for the final m.
I've included a visual from a website, which incidentally is the same article that appears under this subject on Wikipedia, Answers.com, and a couple other websites. The article gives much more information.
If you wonder why some letters appear twice on the keyboard, it's because the keys to the left of the * are used to generate initial consonants, and the keys to the right are used for final consonants.
WAH, if you have information that shows a stenotype machine that does have the m and n keys, please post it.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Cheng for Dummies
One of our frequent commenters, Wearhing a Halo (WAH), suggests that I have misunderstood Dr. Cheng's testimony. To quote from his comment:
"At best Dr. Cheng mispoke and at worst Dr. Cheng was misquoted by the court reporter/transcriber when Dr. Cheng said '40 knots (kn)'. It is my contention is that Dr. Cheng meant "40 kilometers (km)". 40 km fits with the data where 40 kn does not. If Dr. Cheng did state 40 kn . . ."
So, let's discuss this possibility.
First, let's start by reviewing what Cheng actually said:
"I felt that was, wow, quite a wind event during that day. I really recall in my own mind, you can see now the scientific records showed us now during that particular period of time, in the morning, or starting from the midnight of the midnight April 11th, or early morning of April 12th, you can see wind exceeded 40 knots. 40 knots, wind exceeded. Also a sustained wind for long period of time, subsided slightly, but still continued on for another good twelve, eighteen hours with wind average around twenty knots per hour."
Cheng actually repeated 40 knots. Now, sometimes he did misspeak, but then corrected himself. He repeated 40 knots, to emphasize it, in my opinion, not to correct it.
Second, the transcript spells out the word knots; the abbreviation kn is not used, so it's not a simple case of the Court Reporter mishearing or making a typo. Knots is a one syllable word; kilometers is a 4-syllable word. Knots doesn't sound anything like kilometers. I really don't think a Court Reporter could hear kilometers and record knots.
Third, when do Americans ever measure wind speed in kilometers? How many Americans even know what a kilometer is? Well, I checked, just to be sure, using a handy online converter.
40km per hour = 24.9 mph.
Yes, WAH, that significantly reduces the wind speed, as 40 knots per hour equals 46 mph. So this "wow, quite a wind event" has gone down from 46 mph to 24.9 mph.
But does that mean we then have to refigure the sustained winds for 12-18 hours of 20 knots per hour? 20 knots per hour which converts to 23 mph really should have been 20km per hour, which converts to 12.4 mph. I know people in the Bay Area can be really whimpy when it comes to wind events, but calling 12.4 mph winds a "wow, quite a wind event" is beyond whimpy.
But then we have the characterization by Distaso. Initial winds of 24.9 mph followed by sustained winds of 12.4 mph equals a "very violent storm" as Distaso called it in the State's Closing Argument? Talk about hyperbole.
WAH, I readily admit, 12.4 mph much better describes the "wow quite a wind event" on April 12, but does that really help the State's case? I don't think 12.4 mph winds qualify as a "wow, quite a wind event/very violent storm" for the Bay.
Keep talking, WAH. I'm sure Scott appreciates your efforts to clear up what Cheng really meant and to expose the truth about the storm as well as the hyperbole in Distaso's characterization. Let's see, I seem to recall that to intentionally misrepresent evidence is prosecutorial misconduct.
Any one have a larger petri dish handy?
"At best Dr. Cheng mispoke and at worst Dr. Cheng was misquoted by the court reporter/transcriber when Dr. Cheng said '40 knots (kn)'. It is my contention is that Dr. Cheng meant "40 kilometers (km)". 40 km fits with the data where 40 kn does not. If Dr. Cheng did state 40 kn . . ."
So, let's discuss this possibility.
First, let's start by reviewing what Cheng actually said:
"I felt that was, wow, quite a wind event during that day. I really recall in my own mind, you can see now the scientific records showed us now during that particular period of time, in the morning, or starting from the midnight of the midnight April 11th, or early morning of April 12th, you can see wind exceeded 40 knots. 40 knots, wind exceeded. Also a sustained wind for long period of time, subsided slightly, but still continued on for another good twelve, eighteen hours with wind average around twenty knots per hour."
Cheng actually repeated 40 knots. Now, sometimes he did misspeak, but then corrected himself. He repeated 40 knots, to emphasize it, in my opinion, not to correct it.
Second, the transcript spells out the word knots; the abbreviation kn is not used, so it's not a simple case of the Court Reporter mishearing or making a typo. Knots is a one syllable word; kilometers is a 4-syllable word. Knots doesn't sound anything like kilometers. I really don't think a Court Reporter could hear kilometers and record knots.
Third, when do Americans ever measure wind speed in kilometers? How many Americans even know what a kilometer is? Well, I checked, just to be sure, using a handy online converter.
40km per hour = 24.9 mph.
Yes, WAH, that significantly reduces the wind speed, as 40 knots per hour equals 46 mph. So this "wow, quite a wind event" has gone down from 46 mph to 24.9 mph.
But does that mean we then have to refigure the sustained winds for 12-18 hours of 20 knots per hour? 20 knots per hour which converts to 23 mph really should have been 20km per hour, which converts to 12.4 mph. I know people in the Bay Area can be really whimpy when it comes to wind events, but calling 12.4 mph winds a "wow, quite a wind event" is beyond whimpy.
But then we have the characterization by Distaso. Initial winds of 24.9 mph followed by sustained winds of 12.4 mph equals a "very violent storm" as Distaso called it in the State's Closing Argument? Talk about hyperbole.
WAH, I readily admit, 12.4 mph much better describes the "wow quite a wind event" on April 12, but does that really help the State's case? I don't think 12.4 mph winds qualify as a "wow, quite a wind event/very violent storm" for the Bay.
Keep talking, WAH. I'm sure Scott appreciates your efforts to clear up what Cheng really meant and to expose the truth about the storm as well as the hyperbole in Distaso's characterization. Let's see, I seem to recall that to intentionally misrepresent evidence is prosecutorial misconduct.
Any one have a larger petri dish handy?
Monday, June 15, 2009
SII temorarily unavailable
I am changing host providers for SII, and so it may be unavailable for a short period. We'll have it up again as quickly as possible.
Of course, the forum is hosted on the same site, so it may also be unavailable.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Of course, the forum is hosted on the same site, so it may also be unavailable.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Forum open again
As some of you remember, several months ago the server that hosts SII had some problems and I had to reload all of SII. In the process, the forum that was up and running went down, too. I planned to wait till the Civil trial got underway before opening it back up again, but now that is not going to happen.
However, the forum is up and running again. All of the previous posts were lost, but all registrations are still there. Everyone that was registered was sent an email, so if it was a correct email address, you should have received it.
If you do not remember your password, have the system send you a new one on the log in page. If you do not remember your password, send me an email with what you do remember, and I'll check the membership list for it.
The forum is different this time in that it is not only for discussion of the Scott Peterson case, so I've named it "Marlene's Chat Room." The rules are simple, and the most important ones are posted on each page. A little more useful information is on the Welcome page, which I strongly recommend you read the first time you visit.
New registrations must be approved simply because of the horrible problem with spammers invading forums. It's not because I'm trying to keep anyone out. All are welcome, regardless of past history with me or with anyone else, and regardless of your position on Scott's case or anyone else's.
If you are interested, click here.
However, the forum is up and running again. All of the previous posts were lost, but all registrations are still there. Everyone that was registered was sent an email, so if it was a correct email address, you should have received it.
If you do not remember your password, have the system send you a new one on the log in page. If you do not remember your password, send me an email with what you do remember, and I'll check the membership list for it.
The forum is different this time in that it is not only for discussion of the Scott Peterson case, so I've named it "Marlene's Chat Room." The rules are simple, and the most important ones are posted on each page. A little more useful information is on the Welcome page, which I strongly recommend you read the first time you visit.
New registrations must be approved simply because of the horrible problem with spammers invading forums. It's not because I'm trying to keep anyone out. All are welcome, regardless of past history with me or with anyone else, and regardless of your position on Scott's case or anyone else's.
If you are interested, click here.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Details of the Dismissal
According to the court document, the dismissal was filed "as to Sharon Rocha only." However, since Judge Beauchesne has dropped the case from his calendar, it appears Dennis Rocha must have filed his own dismissal.
The second detail is that Sharon Rocha filed the dismissal "without prejudice," which means she can refile the suit at a future date.
The second detail is that Sharon Rocha filed the dismissal "without prejudice," which means she can refile the suit at a future date.
Within legal civil procedure, prejudice refers to a loss or injury, and refers specifically to a formal determination against a claimed legal right or cause of action. [1] Thus, in a civil case, dismissal without prejudice is a dismissal that allows for re-filing of the case in the future. The present action is dismissed but the possibility remains open that the plantiff may file another suit on the same claim. This directly differs from a dismissal with prejudice, in which the plantiff is barred from filing another case on the same claim. Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment and the case becomes res judicata on the claims that were or could have been brought in it. Dismissal without prejudice is not. (Wikipedia)
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Rochas drop wrongful death suit against Scott
I congratulate Sharon and Dennis Rocha for making this decision.
Laci's parents drop wrongful death lawsuit against Peterson
The parents of Laci Peterson quietly dropped a wrongful death lawsuit against death row inmate Scott Peterson last week, a court official said, leaving a Stanislaus County Superior Court judge with no reason to call the case that had been scheduled for a hearing this morning.
A trial was slated to begin next month, but Modesto’s most notorious offender would not have been transported from San Quentin State Prison. And even if Scott Peterson’s former in-laws had won a multi-million-dollar judgment, it would have been largely symbolic.
The litigation did not shed much more light on a sensational capital case that ended in guilty verdicts in fall 2004 and sent Scott Peterson, formerly a fertilizer salesman, to death row in spring 2005.
AP - Laci Peterson
CLICK FOR MORE PHOTOS
The Peterson Case: A special report
In a videotaped deposition taken in jail, Scott Peterson insisted that he did not kill his wife and unborn son. He also asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination, declining to answer questions 195 times, according to a transcript that is part of the public record.
It was unclear if a settlement had been reached, though a court official said attorneys for Sharon Rocha and her ex-husband Dennis Rocha filed papers to dismiss the case.
Attorneys involved in the case were not immediately available for comment.
Scott Peterson’s conviction is on appeal in the California Supreme Court.
http://www.modbee.com/featured/story/685591.html
Laci's parents drop wrongful death lawsuit against Peterson
The parents of Laci Peterson quietly dropped a wrongful death lawsuit against death row inmate Scott Peterson last week, a court official said, leaving a Stanislaus County Superior Court judge with no reason to call the case that had been scheduled for a hearing this morning.
A trial was slated to begin next month, but Modesto’s most notorious offender would not have been transported from San Quentin State Prison. And even if Scott Peterson’s former in-laws had won a multi-million-dollar judgment, it would have been largely symbolic.
The litigation did not shed much more light on a sensational capital case that ended in guilty verdicts in fall 2004 and sent Scott Peterson, formerly a fertilizer salesman, to death row in spring 2005.
AP - Laci Peterson
CLICK FOR MORE PHOTOS
The Peterson Case: A special report
In a videotaped deposition taken in jail, Scott Peterson insisted that he did not kill his wife and unborn son. He also asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination, declining to answer questions 195 times, according to a transcript that is part of the public record.
It was unclear if a settlement had been reached, though a court official said attorneys for Sharon Rocha and her ex-husband Dennis Rocha filed papers to dismiss the case.
Attorneys involved in the case were not immediately available for comment.
Scott Peterson’s conviction is on appeal in the California Supreme Court.
http://www.modbee.com/featured/story/685591.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)