NOAA does measure storm surge

One of the reasons people reject our evidence that Conner didn't wash ashore is the myth that the April 12 storm surge raised the water levels to unknown heights, and therefore it can't be proven that he didn't wash ashore.

The truth is, the 6-minute water level data collected by the NOAA does capture storm surges.  I've been making this point for years, and Sandy provides another opportunity to hammer it home.  Here are just two examples from NOAA stations in New York.  The red line is the observed water level, and the blue line is the predicted water level.  The green line is the difference between the predicted and the observed.





I had previously commented on the effects of the March 2011 Japan tsunami on the water levels in the San Francisco Bay.  Click here to read the full article.



To review, this is the chart for the Richmond station for April 11-13, 2003, showing the storm surge for the storm that hit the Bay area on April 12.  You can see just when the surge began and how large it was during the high tide on April 13, the day Conner was found.



It is well and good to hypothesize what might have happened on April 13, 2003; but it is necessary to be sure the objective data validates the hypothesis.  And the objective data does not validate the hypothesis that the April 12 storm surge produced unknown water levels.

Why don't these issues matter?

Jane commented:

These are questions that have never been answered by the people who believe Scott Peterson is guilty:
How do you justify the failure of the MPD to promptly investigate:
1. the sightings of Laci walking in the neighborhood on the morning of Dec. 24?

2. the Harshman tip?

3. the Aponte tip?

4. the 3 men with the van seen by Diane Jackson?

5. the Croton watch and the woman who pawned it?

6. the use of the home computer between 8:40-8:45 on the morning of Dec. 24?

Jane, the answer I repeatedly get is, "they got the right man in the end, so it doesn't matter if they made some mistakes during the investigation."  And some praise the MPD for not letting themselves be distracted with this stuff, but keeping their focus on Scott, and it paid off.

These same people refuse to even admit that the Medina burglary occurred on the morning of the 24th.  Perhaps if they could take their blinders off long enough to admit that, they might start to take notice.

However, I have no idea what is necessary to get people to admit that the Medina burglary occurred in the morning of the 24th.  We've proven Todd could not have seen the mail inside the Medina mailbox and that he lied about where he was on the 24th. The Aponte tip links Todd directly with Laci on the morning of the 24th, and there is other evidence that Laci was alive on the 24th.

But because people can't be given a precise timeline when it all happened, and not every detail can be supplied, they refuse to take this evidence seriously.  Which is quite ironic given how many details Distaso flat-out admitted at trial the State couldn't provide.

There is still a $250,000 reward for information leading to Scott's exoneration.  There's also a $5,000 reward for the recovery of Laci's croton watch.  With so many people out there having enough information to benefit from these rewards, it's a real shame to let them go to waste.

What professional literature is there on bodies recovered from salt water?

RoseMontague commeted:

Let’s talk about how long Laci’s corpse was in the water. VOS says in his latest blog entry:“Laci Peterson could not have been in the sea for more than 14 days at the extreme outside. 16 weeks is impossible - there would remain only a few scattered bones of hers and nothing of the baby.” He links to a very good and appropriate study here called TR-09-2002. 

If you read the actual study, you can see it contradicts the claim made in the opening quote. In fact, it even shows a picture from the Fall experiment of a largely intact pig brought out of the water at 35 days. So what other literature is out there on time of death determination in bodies recovered from saltwater?

I don't agree with VOS that Laci was in the water 14 days at the extreme.  Evelyn Hernandez was missing 85 days and her remains were much more disarticulated than Laci's (112 days post mortem).  Both women had adipose tissue on the thighs and buttocks.  VOS seems to be ignoring the adipocere which takes weeks or months to form.

Estimating the post-mortem time period is by no means an exact science -- only a range can be determined, and that might not be 100% accurate as all conditions to which the body was subjected might not be known.  Galloway gave a 3-6 month estimate.  Interestingly, 3 months allows for Laci to still be alive as late as mid-January.

We've consulted a couple of sources to gain an understanding of the decomposition process, and especially for aqueous environments.

Forensic Taphonomy: the Postmortem fate of Human Remains by William Haglund and Marcella Sorg, 1996.  Click here for a list of all the chapters.  Of particular interest are chapters 29, 37 and 38.  You can copy the chapter titles into a google search and then should be able to access the entire chapters.

An Experimental Field Protocol for Investigating the Postmortem Interval Using Multidisciplinary Indicators, by Kenneth Schoenly, Ph.D.; Karen Griest, M. D.; and Stanley Rhine, Ph.D., found in Journal of Forensic Sciences, JFSCA, Vol. 36, No. 5, Sept. 1991, pp. 1395-1415.

Color Atlas of Forensic Pathology by Jay Dix.  It's exactly what it says -- a color atlas, meaning lots and lots of photos that are very gruesome.  Not something to read over lunch.


"Disappearance of Soft Tissue and the Disarticulation of Human Remains from Aqueous Environments," William Haglund, Journal of Forensic Sciences, JFSCA, Vol. 38, No. 4, July 1993, pp. 806-815.

There is some research ongoing on using Accumulative Degree Days (ADD) or Cumulative Degree Hours (CDH).  Click here for the source for the following, which provides information on using the presence of the decomposition chemicals to help determine PMI, but that wasn't done in Laci's case.

Accumulated Degree Days (ADDs), as described by Edwards et
al. (12), have typically been used for PMI determinations and are
determined by taking the sum of the average daily temperatures
(°C) for however long the corpse has been decomposing. For example,
one subject may require 4 days (assuming an average daily
temperature of 25°C) to attain an ADD score of 100, while another
subject, decomposing under cooler temperatures, may also obtain
an ADD score of 100, but which would require 20 days (assuming
a daily average temperature of 5°C) to attain the same decompositional
status and hence the same ratios of biomarkers in specific tissues.
This study indicates that ADDs are no longer sufficient to accurately
describe the narrowing PMIs. A more accurate technique,
based on ADDs, is the use of cumulative degree hours (CDHs).
This uses a twelve hour temperature cycle to describe the decompositional
process. Instead of using daily average temperatures, the
average temperature (°C) for each twelve hour interval is cumulatively
added to attain the CDH. For example, if maximum temperature
(30°C) is reached at noon every day and minimum temperature
(10°C) is reached every day at midnight, then in a 24 h period
(one day) the CDH would be 40 CDHs (30 + 10)/2 = 20 for the
first 12 h -- noon to midnight and (10 + 30)/2 = 20 from midnight
to noon for the second twelve h interval resulting in 20 + 20 = 40
CDHs.

Laura Ayers used ADD in her experiment, which is another very valuable read:  DIFFERENTIAL DECOMPOSITION IN TERRESTRIAL, FRESHWATER, AND SALTWATER ENVIRONMENTS: A PILOTSTUDY.

I think these are the major works regarding decomposition, especially in salt water.

The defense boat demonstration - is it credible?

RoseMontague commented:

I think the boat video is pretty silly. Man, motor, and body all in the back of the boat with the guy trying to lift as he is sitting down in the very back of the boat. The prosecution was allowed to show an example of someone fitting into the compartment up from that one which would be in a more stable area.
Conversely, the man is shown in the first part of the video one compartment up standing up and the boat appears stable from that standpoint. He could have done his lifting from the middle of the boat rather than the rear. In addition the fishing expert (and they do catch some very heavy fish) indicated he believed he would not have a problem disposing of a body over the side of such a boat.
I wondered after seeing the video what was cut out of it from the point of the guy standing up to the point where he is being silly.

Can we agree that the Prosecution's demonstration should not have been admitted?  It no way can be considered a replication of the crime:  this was a living woman who was able to crawl into the boat and squirm around until she fit.

Here is the defense demonstration for those who haven't seen it.

There were other boat-dumping experiments.  One of the reporters who attended the trial and had doubts about Scott's guilt did his own experiment and reported that he could not do it without capsizing the boat.  Two brothers who attended the trial and were absolutely convinced Scott was guilty did an experiment.  They did successfully dump the body without capsizing the boat, but the body wouldn't sink.  I'm not sure whether there are videos of these demonstration available or not.  If anyone knows, please leave the information in the comments.

Detective Hendee wanted the MPD to do its own experiment during the investigation.  He seems to have had some question about the boat being stable enough to dump a body from.   The lead detectives said No.  However, Grogan did theorize that Scott would have to stabilize the boat, and they examined the boat for any signs of paint transfer to indicate he had tied the boat to one of the buoys. They did find some red paint on the boat, but it didn't match the paint used for the buoys and the defense suggested that the red paint transfer came from the red dolly where the boat was stored.

The fisherman's testimony -- he does say he believes he could dump a body the size of Laci and weighted down with weights from a boat Scott's size.  I wish he would have been given the opportunity to show that he could do it, alone.  He did say in his testimony that in handling the large fish, he usually had someone along with him, and that they "slid" out of the boat when they put them back into the water.   The other key factor is that we have no evidence that Scott had a similar experience with large fish.  Unless he did, could he match the feat of that fisherman?

So, for boat experiments, we have two that capsized while trying to dump the body, and one that could not get the body to sink.  

And I find it interesting that a lot of people ridicule Scott for taking such a small boat out onto the Bay to fish, but don't have any trouble believing he took it out on the Bay to dispose of Laci.

Let's discuss the exonerating evidence

During jury deliberations, several media focused on what the jury didn't hear, in anticipation of a hung jury or, even worse (from their perspective), an acquittal.  These media wanted to be sure America knew that Scott was really guilty, regardless of a bad jury outcome.  Of course, the jury did as expected and Scott was convicted.

In the years since then, we've attempted to provide information on exonerating evidence that the jury did not hear.  Many resolutely reject such a premise, arguing that if any such evidence existed, Mark Geragos would have presented it.  This is a pretty ridiculous argument, given that most post-conviction exonerations result from evidence not presented at trial.  We're not here to throw stones at Mark Geragos -- 42,000+ pages of discovery turned over piecemeal with no sense of organization was hardly inadvertent.

Others reject our efforts on the argument that we don't have expert witnesses to confirm that our arguments are correct, and therefore they are under no obligation to consider such evidence.  However, this argument is very weak simply because the exonerating evidence in this case doesn't require being an expert to understand -- to put it bluntly, it's not rocket science.  People of average intelligence and good common sense can read the same professional literature that we've read and come to the same conclusions.  And any expert called to testify in the future on Scott's behalf will be trained in the professional literature, or at least very well familiar with it, and may even have written some of it. We know that many think we simply scour the Internet looking for that one obscure source that says what we need it to say to make our arguments.  We ask that those who do not believe that the professional information we provide is representative of the body of literature available, to simply give us the name(s) and publication information of the professional literature that disagrees, and we'll take a good look at it and then discuss it.

Others use anecdotal information to dispute the exonerating evidence.  Anecdotal information can indeed be useful in making us aware of the things that could possibly happen, such as a very large wave propelling Conner to his final resting place 24 feet from the breakwater and well out of the reach of the debris line.  We are eager to discuss any possible explanation for Conner's location, or any of the other exonerating evidence, but we expect that we will be able to find some evidence that the possible explanation actually did occur.

I know there will be a strong response along these lines -- what about all the incriminating evidence, how do you explain all of that?  I don't attempt to explain all of that, except to say that if this body of exonerating evidence is credible, then all of the incriminating evidence simply falls by the wayside.  I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "that's a deal-breaker."  What makes a person look guilty does not win against what proves a person is innocent.  At least it shouldn't.


There also might be some people that think, Even if this exonerating evidence is credible, that doesn't prove Scott is innocent.  So let's discuss your theory of how Scott can still be guilty.

This venue isn't the best for discussions, but I think we can make it work.  You post a question about, or an objection to, or an argument against the exonerating evidence.  I'll copy your comment into a new article, and that will open the discussion, through my reply and through comments posted.  If we keep on subject, we should be able to have a good discussion.

Here we go again . . .

It's quite alarming to see the undue attention I've gotten over the years from a small group of people who are rabid in their hatred towards Scott Peterson and anyone who advocates for his innocence.  The accusations against me over time range from being fired to illegally claiming disability to defrauding Mark Geragos out of money collected for Scott's defense.  Of course, the persons making these accusations never provide evidence -- because none exists.

There is now a person posting on the Facebook page "Scott Peterson Case: Truth be Told" by the name of Howard Gere who is not only repeating all of those age-old unfounded accusations but also claims I have made death threats on SII (pwc-sii.com) and this blog against Sharon, Amber, Distaso, and Sneddon.

Of course, Howard hasn't produced any evidence of either the age-old accusations or these death threats.  That's because there isn't any evidence to produce.  Zip, nothing, nada.

By the way, who is Sneddon?

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.