The size of the uterus during pregnancy

Dr. Brian Peterson, the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsies and Conner and Laci, provided some inconvenient objective measurements -- inconvenient because they prove the State's case wrong.

Dr. Peterson measured Conner's CRL (crown-rump-length) to be 32 cm, and his CHL (crown-heel-length) to be 48 cm.  CRL is nearly the shortest length the baby can be in the uterus when it is in fetal position.

Dr. Peterson measured Laci's uterus to be 23 cm, from the top of the fundus to the bottom of the cervix where it attaches to the vagina.  Normally, a baby doesn't occupy any part of the cervix until it descends in preparation for birth.

For my expert witness that a 32 cm CRL could not be housed in a 23 cm top-to-bottom uterus, I call Dr. J. Clifton Edgar, author of The Practice of Obstetrics, published in 1916 as a textbook for midwives.  Dr. Edgar will provide us with a chart which gives the size of the fetus and uterus at the different stages of pregnancy.  Edgar derived his statistics and data from 2200 confinement cases he observed:  1000 from the New York Maternity hospital and 1200 from the Mothers' and Babies' Hospital.  That is not the sum of his experience, however, as he had personally observed over 20,000 confinements by the time the 5th edition of The Practice of Obstetrics was published in 1916.

Dr. Edgar's expert testimony includes the CRL and CHL of fetuses compared to the 3-dimensional measurements for the uteri from which they came.  Many expert sources give us the age of fetuses based on CRL, CHL, or the measurements of one or more bones, but Dr. Edgar is unique in that he gives us the 3-dimensional measurements of the uteri that housed those fetuses.  Some who steadfastly resist any evidence that Scott Peterson is factually innocent argue that since the uterus is 3-dimensional, it can be shorter than the CRL of the  baby.  However, when we look at the 3-dimensional measurements of the uterus as provided by Dr. Edgar, we see that without fail the uterus' longest measurement is always longer than the CRL of the fetus.  That's because the uterus is holding more than just the fetus.  The placenta is often 1/3 the size of the baby, and then of course there is the amniotic fluid that takes up some of that 3-dimensional space.

Dr. Edgar informs us that Dr. Peterson's 48 cm CHL matches the maximum CHL for 9 months, which is what Peterson estimated Conner's age to be.

Dr. Edgar informs us that a 32 cm CRL fits in with the 10th month range.

Pointing specifically at the uterus size for the 9th month, Dr. Edgar notes that we see, in centimeters, 32.50 x 23.25 x 21.25.  32.50 cm - 23 cm for Laci's uterus = 9.5 cm difference, or 3.7 inches.

Dr. Edgar also informs us that the uterus size for 8 months, or 32 weeks, which was Conner's gestational age on December 23, is 28.75 x 21.25 x 17.5.   28.75 cm - 23 cm for Laci's uterus = 5.75 cm difference, or 2.3 inches.

In Dr. Edgar's expert opinion, a 32 cm CRL (48 cm CHL) fetus cannot be housed in a 23 cm top-to-bottom uterus.

Anyone may obtain Dr. Edgar's book from Google Books, entirely free.

If anyone wants to check Dr. Edgar's fetal sizes against "modern" measurements, you can use this chart. You will see that Dr. Edgar's fetal measurements for each age are right in line.

http://www.babycenter.com/average-fetal-length-weight-chart

One final note.  Laci had her last prenatal appointment on the afternoon of December 23.  No abnormality was observed in either her fundal height or Conner's development.

Does strangulation leave evidence?

It's indisputable that not a speck of trace evidence was discovered in the Peterson residence at 523 N.  Covena.  The detectives were faced with that reality as test after test on items seized and sent to the Ripon lab came back negative.  Nor was there any evidence of a struggle on Scott's body.  Detectives then reasoned that he drugged Laci to incapacitate her, then strangled her or choked her.  They had to drop the drugged element because their efforts to find evidence that Scott had possession of any drug that would incapacitate Laci were likewise futile.

So this is what Distaso ended up arguing:

It's very simple. The defendant strangled or smothered Laci Peterson the night of February, January, December 23rd, or in the morning while she was getting dressed on the 24th. I can't tell you when he did it. I can't tell you if he did it at night. I can't tell you if he did it in the morning. I'm not going to try to convince you of something that I can't prove. I don't have to prove that to you. I only have to prove that he did it.

What did the doctor tell us about strangling and smothering? It's not going leave a bunch of evidence. Remember this whole, went through all of this evidence. Where's the bloody crime scene? Remember what the doctor said? As crude as this sounds, and I hate to say it: If you don't put another hole in somebody, not going to get a big, bloody crime scene. It's just not going to happen.

Of course,  "a bunch of evidence" and "a big, bloody crime scene" grossly distorts reality -- not a speck of trace evidence was found in that home.

We also heard from Dr. Cyril Wecht that one of the reasons he didn't testify is because he would have had to admit that strangulation can be committed without leaving any evidence.

That's not what a strangulation study conducted by the San Diego District Attorney's office concluded.

The initial study consisted of 100 strangulation cases, which were selected at random from police reports submitted over a five-year period. The first 100 victims were all women who reported being choked by their partners with bare hands, arms, or objects such as electrical cords, belts, rope, bras, or bathing suits. In one case, a victim reported that her boyfriend put a plastic bag over her head and tried to suffocate her.

The purpose of the study was to improve the investigation and prosecution of strangulation cases in the county.

The general clinical sequence of a victim who is being strangled is one of severe pain, followed by unconsciousness, followed by brain death. The victim will lose consciousness by any one or all of the following: blocking of the carotid arteries (depriving the brain of oxygen), blocking of the jugular veins (preventing deoxygenated blood from exiting the brain), and closing off the airway, causing the victim to be unable to breathe.

Only eleven pounds of pressure placed on both carotid arteries for ten seconds is necessary to cause unconsciousness.4 However, if pressure is released immediately, consciousness will be regained within ten seconds.

To completely close off the trachea, three times as much pressure (33 lbs.) is required. Brain death will occur in 4 to 5 minutes, if strangulation persists.

One of the study's observations is that the offender is likely to have more evidence on his body than the victim will have on hers.

Because victims fear for their lives, they may protect themselves by trying to get perpetrators to release their holds by either pushing them back, biting them, scratching their faces, or pulling their hair.

Depending on the method of strangulation being used, the suspect may be the only individual with visible injuries.

For example, if the suspect is strangling the victim from behind and using a chokehold, the victim may protect herself by biting the suspect in the arm.

If the suspect is manually strangling the victim from the front (face to face), she may either push him away, scratch him, or pull his hair.

When officers arrive at the scene, they may find the suspect with visible injuries . . .

Of course, Scott had no such injuries on his body.

Strangulation has a good deal of potential to unwittingly leave forensic evidence at the crime scene.

Objective signs noted in strangulation victims include involuntary urination and defecation.  Miscarriages have been anecdotally reported occurring hours to days later.

And that involuntary urination and defecation is from the women that survive an attempted strangulation -- the possibility from pregnant women that die from the strangulation most assuredly would increase.

Of course, the MPD looked for evidence of involuntary urination and defecation because they sorely wanted to prove Laci was murdered in the home -- but they didn't find any.

So they created the myth that strangulation wouldn't leave any such evidence.  And Distaso distorted reality with his "bunch of evidence" and "a big, bloody crime scene" statement in his Closing Argument.

Experts with no expertise

Truth Be Told facebook page provides a good summary of the points made in Scott's brief about two so-called experts that testified at trial.  If you aren't already following this facebook page, I highly recommend it.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-peterson-case-truth-be-told/experts-with-no-expertise/479717512041034

The DAs are not dummies -- they knew, as we now know, that there was a lot of evidence that showed that Laci went into the Bay after December 24, 2002 -- not only did that open the way for someone else to have put her there, it made it virtually impossible for Scott to have done so.  The only way they could cover up, or mitigate this exonerating evidence, was to create the illusion, through phony experts, of a direct link between Scott and the recovery sites.

This isn't "All About Amber"

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/07/scott-peterson-appeal-amber-frey-ex-mistress-laci

Hopefully, the 2nd trial judge will be courageous enough to rule that the Amber testimony has nothing of value to explain Laci's disappearance and only served to prejudice the jury against Scott -- so Amber can sit on home on the couch and watch it all on TV.

However, I do hope Ron Frey is right when he said that he hopes that at the 2nd trial, we'll finally learn what happened to Laci.  That will only ensure to win Scott's full acquittal.  Hopefully, we don't find out that somehow his daughter had something to do with it, or some knowledge of what went down.  But it's quite a frequent occurrence that a witness at the trial that convicted an innocent person was actually involved in some manner.

Death penalty tossed in killing of rocker's mom

This is very good news for Scott -- as this is a critical issue in his appeal, as noted in the article.

The California Supreme Court on Monday tossed out the death sentence of a man convicted of murdering rock guitarist Dave Navarro's mother and her friend nearly 30 years ago — a ruling that could affect the cases of Scott Peterson and other death row inmates.

The unanimous court said the trial judge presiding over the trial of John Riccardi improperly dismissed a prospective juror because of her conflicting written responses in a questionnaire asking her views of the death penalty.

The court said the judge was required to delve deeper into the juror's death penalty views and determine if she could impose the death sentence is she believed prosecutors proved their case.

Peterson and a few other California death row inmates are appealing on similar grounds.

Peterson was convicted of killing his wife Laci, who was 8 months pregnant with their son, and dumping her body in San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve 2002. Investigators believe Peterson either strangled or suffocated his wife.

Peterson has always maintained his innocence and claims in his appeal filed earlier this month that the trial judge presiding over his 2004 trial wrongly dismissed 13 jurors who said they opposed the death penalty but could follow the law and impose it if warranted.

In 1984, a narrowly divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that reversal of the death penalty is automatic when potential jurors are dismissed because of their written answers to questions about their views on capital punishment.

Peterson's attorney Cliff Gardner argued in his appeal that the mistake occurred in the Peterson trial and may be the basis of appeals of a few other death row inmates.

The last California execution occurred in 2006. Lawsuits in federal and state courts have forced a temporary halt to executions.

In its ruling Monday, the state high court upheld Riccardi's murder conviction. Once a noted body builder, he was convicted of killing former girlfriend Connie Navarro in a jealous rage. Her friend Sue Jory also was killed. Navarro's son played guitar for the band "Jane's Addiction."

It's now up the California attorney general to determine if another penalty phase will be held or if Riccardi is taken off death row and sentenced to life in prison.

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said that ruling "compels the reversal of the penalty phase without any inquiry as to whether the error actually" led to an unfair trial. The chief justice wrote separately to urge the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the automatic reversal in such cases.

The juror in question, identified only by the initials "N.K." in the ruling, wrote on the questionnaire that she supported California's reinstatement of the death penalty and stated that it is not used enough.

But later in the questionnaire, the juror gave answers that suggest she opposes capital punishment.

"I'm afraid I could not feel right in imposing the death penalty on someone even though I feel it is nessasary (sic) under some circumstances," N.K. wrote.

Cantil-Sakauye wrote that the trial court judge should have questioned her more instead of dismissing her as he did.

The chief justice said the juror's conflicting answers meant either she "feared that actually being on a death jury would be difficult or uncomfortable, or she was advising the court that she could not impose a decision of death, even if the evidence warranted its application. From the questionnaire alone, we cannot possibly determine which scenario prompted her answers."

Riccardi was arrested in Houston eight years after the killings when "America's Most Wanted" aired a segment on the 1983 crime. A tipster recognized him and alerted authorities.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/16/death-penalty-tossed-in-killing-rocker-mom/#ixzz20rPDxMqG

An Index worth reviewing

Here is an index of articles on SII or this blog that cover many, many aspects of this case.  It's well worth reviewing.

http://pwc-consulting.blogspot.com/p/investigation-states-evidence-or-lack.html

Once convicted, evidence of actual innocence doesn't automatically set you free!

Most people think that if Scott had proof of his actual innocence, he would be free by now.  That's not the way the system works for convicted persons.  And here's another story from Modesto that shows the hoops innocent convicted persons have to jump through to regain their freedom.

Saturday, Jul. 07, 2012
Modesto landlord convicted in fatal fire may now challenge ruling
By Maura Dolan 
Los Angeles Times Saturday, Jul. 07, 2012 Saturday, Jul. 07, 2012 
By Maura Dolan 

FRESNO -- A federal judge has ruled that a Modesto man convicted of setting a fire that killed his tenant and her two children has shown "actual innocence" and may now challenge his conviction on other grounds.
Chief U.S. District Judge Anthony W. Ishii upheld the findings of a magistrate who examined the evidence against George Souliotes, 72, and concluded that no reasonable juror would have convicted him given the state of the evidence today.
But the court's finding will not necessarily free Souliotes, convicted of setting a 1997 fire in a rental home he owned. 

Modesto Bee - George Apostos Souliotes is charged in the arson deaths of Daniel Jones Jr., Amanda Jones and their mother Michelle Jones. Souliotes, a disgruntled landlord set their home ablaze. Retrial sought for '97 Modesto murder 

His lawyers missed a legal filing deadline, and under the law, Souliotes had to prove his innocence before he could appeal his conviction on other grounds, including inadequate legal representation at trial.

In determining actual innocence, the judge considered both old and new evidence, regardless of its admissibility at trial. His decision was based on whether he believed it was "more likely than not" that a reasonable juror with that information would have found the inmate guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ishii said in his ruling that the appeal should now proceed quickly. Citing Souliotes' age, Ishii said the innocence determination "only heightens" the urgency required.

Fire scientists have discredited evidence that was used to convict Souliotes, and the state has conceded that it no longer can prove that the deadly 1997 blaze was deliberately set. Souliotes has been behind bars for 15 years.

Aleka Pantazis, 64, Souliotes' sister, said attorneys will meet early next week to schedule a hearing.

"My heart is so happy, and I am so touched," said the Glendale resident, who helped persuade the Northern California Innocence Project to represent Souliotes. "I can finally hope." 

California Attorney General Kamala Harris has fought to uphold the conviction that sent the Greek immigrant to prison for life. Lawyers for her office tried to overturn the innocence finding on the grounds that Souliotes has not proved exoneration.

But Ishii said the law does not require exonerating evidence in such cases.

'Shoes tell the tale'

Michelle Jones, 31, and her children, Daniel Jones Jr., 8, and Amanda, 3, perished in the fire.
Modesto fire investigators determined that the blaze was deliberately set, based on a variety of factors that are now known to occur in accidental fires. Prosecutors also presented evidence that a petroleum substance found on Souliotes' shoes matched a compound that ignited the fire and called it "the most conclusive scientific evidence of his guilt." 

"The shoes tell the tale," a prosecutor told the jury in closing arguments.

But a fire scientist later determined that the substance on the shoes was chemically different from the fire debris, a finding that prosecutors did not dispute.

Prosecutors also presented an eyewitness at trial who testified that she saw Souliotes approach the house in the darkness just before flames erupted. But defense lawyers re-enacted the scene and presented the magistrate with a video that showed she could not have seen what she claimed.

That and other evidence led the magistrate who conducted the innocence hearing to conclude that the witness was not credible. 

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2012/07/07/2274083....l#storylink=cpy