Nancy Grace -- true to form!

Nancy Grace was true to form last night -- big on opinion and misinformation, short on real facts.  

Opinion -- okay, we get it, Grace has a manual for how people should obey when a loved one goes missing, and anyone that fails to act accordingly is guilty.  However, it would be nice for any "investigation" to actually include some facts.

Misinformation -- what she gave last night is particularly inexcusable.  She has staff to fact-check things for her.  Unfortunately, we don't have the benefit of a transcript of the show, so we have to rely on what people recorded as they listened.  Most of the inaccuracies are simply instances of exaggerating the truth.  But why is it necessary to exaggerate the truth?  Why isn't the truth good enough all by itself?  Is that the way she got all those convictions, by exaggerating the truth?

Laci was just about to give birth - the delivery of her unborn son Conner was imminent.  Laci was 32 or 33 weeks pregnant on December 23.  Her original due date was February 10.  So she had 7 weeks remaining.   

There was a big get together planned for that evening and she had worked so hard on it - her whole family was coming.  The get-together was at Sharon's, it was a small get-together, the whole family wasn't coming, and Laci's only responsibility was to bring whipped cream, and she was only asked to do that at the last minute.  Laci was hosting a brunch on Christmas Day and was going to serve french toast.  

It was the night of Laci’s vigil and he was leaving this preposterous message to Amber Frey about where he was on vacation or out of town or some lie and it wasn’t just one – it was call after call after call.  This is the record of phone calls between Scott and Amber on December 31.  

11:35 a.m. Scott Cell 2 called Amber <1 min="min">

11:42 a.m. Amber called Scott Cell 2 <5 min="min">

2:59 p.m. Amber called Scott Cell 2 <2 min="min">

3:05 p.m. Scott Cell 2 called Amber <2 min="min"> 195D

4:18 p.m. Scott Cell 2 called Amber <4 min="min"> 195E

4:20 p.m. Scott Cell 2 called Amber <1 min="min"> 195F

The body of her baby, Conner, there was only 24 hours difference in them washing ashore – I remember that the pedestrian out walking his dog as I recall saw little Conner and thought it was a baby doll  it was so perfect.   There is no reference at all to Conner looking like a baby doll in Looby's testimony.  Dr. Peterson's descriptions of the babies decomposed condition would hardly fit the "so perfect" description.  Did Grace ever see any of those autopsy photos?  In fact, Looby's wife didn't even recognize Conner as a baby at first. 

If Scott Peterson had really been looking for his wife why would he be arrested enroute to Mexico with his hair died another color, false i.d., thousands in cash.  He was set to go, set to leave the jurisdiction.  He had survival gear with him he was headed to Mexico and planned a life there.  Scott was not "enroute to Mexico."  He was living in San Diego, which has a historic reality of being next door to Mexico.  What a great life that would be living on "survival gear" in Mexico.  Apparently Grace isn't aware that Scott was in Mexico in January, and was told by Ted Rowlands that an arrest was imminent, and yet Scott returned to Modesto.  She also must be unaware that the bodies were found on Sunday and Monday and was all over the news, but Scott made no attempt to escape to Mexico or anywhere else during that week while the police waited for the bodies to be ID'd.  

Peterson and his whole camp came into the game ya know snake pit because they had a reason to lie.  And that is something that I’ve long argued to juries, when I assess a case, I look at the potential witnesses to determine their credibility.  What if anything do they have to win or lose based on the outcome of the trial.  Many of them have nothing to gain or to lose, for instance the police, the crime lab analysts, they’re not going to get a raise or a promotion if there’s a conviction.  They’ll be on to the next case the next week.  But Scott Peterson and his family had a lot to lose based on the outcome of the trial.  Well, duh, of course Scott and his family had a lot to lose based on the outcome of the trial -- his whole life.  Grace's reasoning seems to be that no defendant, or anyone testifying on his behalf, can be believed because they have something to lose.  I didn't realize her anti-defendant bias was that radical.  Even more radical is her statement that no one from the prosecution side has anything to gain.  Of course the MPD had something to gain from a conviction and a lot to lose from an acquittal - their reputations.  They had contributed significantly to making this a national media case, and everyone would know exactly who to blame if the case wasn't strong enough to convict.  They would have had to face a very angry Modesto community on their arrival home.  Same with the DAs.  

Furthermore, a lot of people did gain from Scott's conviction -- lots of books sold that wouldn't have had a market if he had been acquitted.  And there were some promotions, according to this ModBee article:

Rick Distaso: Appointed to be a Superior Court Judge in June 2005.
Dave Harris: Promoted to chief deputy district attorney in fall 2005
Birgit Fladager: Elected as District Attorney in June 2006

Allen Brocchini:  promoted to sergeant, leaving investigative services for the operations division
Joh Buehler:   promoted to sergeant, leaving investigative services for the operations division
Craig Grogan: Reassigned to investigate cold cases

Scott referred to Laci in the past tense.  And so did everyone else.

GERAGOS: Now, one of the things that you specifically had mentioned, I think it was you, in one of the interviews that Scott had referred to Laci in the past tense; is that correct?

GROGAN: Talking about the media interviews?

GERAGOS: Right.

GROGAN: Yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. I'm looking at 14751. You got a call from a Marna Davis, who is a reporter from Sacramento, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: And Marna Davis reported that she was a reporter from Sacramento who had spoken to Brent Rocha, and she thought it was odd that Brent Rocha had spoken about his sister in the past tense; is that correct?

GROGAN: That's what this tip says.

GERAGOS: And that she had interviewed Brent Rocha on the day after Christmas and he had referred to Laci in the past tense and she thought that was odd, correct?

GROGAN: That's what the tip says, yes, sir.

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, the, did you, to the best of your knowledge, did anybody follow-up with this reporter, Marna Davis, to see what, what interview she had done with Brent Rocha where he had referred to Laci in the past tense?

GROGAN: No. That's the first I've seen that.

GERAGOS: Okay. That's in the, it is in the discovery in the tips line that comes in; isn't that correct?

GROGAN: It does have a Bates stamp number, so it should be in the discovery.

GERAGOS: Yeah. 14751, correct?

GROGAN: Correct, yes.

GERAGOS: Now, you've also seen a number of the, well, you've got one report here that is, I can't quite, it says page six of six. Is that 142?

GROGAN: I don't know.

GERAGOS: Okay. And is this an interview with Amy?

GROGAN: Yeah, it appears to be.

GERAGOS: You've got some quotation marks around something Amy said; is that correct?

GROGAN: Correct.

GERAGOS: And this is a January 5th report? That you prepared?

GROGAN: Yes.

GERAGOS: Does Amy refer to Laci in the past tense on January 5th? In your quote?

GROGAN: Talking about, yeah, it's talking about jewelry and whether Laci would have set any aside or if it would all be in the jewelry box, and she said: Laci was not that way, she would have shared all of it.

GERAGOS: Okay. Did you find that odd that Amy had spoken about Laci in the past tense?

GROGAN: At the time, no.

GERAGOS: Okay. I've got, you, there were also other interviews that were done on Larry King, on The Early Show, and Good Morning America. And in, you would periodically, I'm sorry, look at those interviews, as well, of the families, correct?

GROGAN: Actually, not very often. I didn't watch very much of the media in this. I was occasionally told about it.

GERAGOS: Okay. Were you aware that in an interview on The Early Show on December 30th that Sharon Rocha spoke about Laci in the past tense?

GROGAN: No.

GERAGOS: Were you aware that on Good Morning America, on December 27th, that Sharon Rocha spoke about Laci in the past tense?

FLADAGER: Your Honor, I would object as (inaudible).

JUDGE: I can't hear you, Ms. Fladager.

FLADAGER: I object to this, your Honor. The detective's indicated he's not watched these programs.

JUDGE: The objection's sustained.

GERAGOS: Did you do any, did you look at who other family members were speaking about the, about Laci on TV?

GROGAN: No. I rarely watched any media reports related to this case.

GERAGOS: Okay. If I were to show you, are you aware of how to obtain transcripts from the shows? Either by a Lexis search?

GROGAN: I know it can be done.

GERAGOS: If I were to tell you during the break to take a look at the Good Morning America transcript from December 27th, or The Early Show from December 30th, or the, specifically the Connie Chung Show, which I guess no longer exists, and they have family members speaking in the past tense; that in and of itself was really indicative of nothing, is it?

GROGAN: I don't know if it's indicative of nothing. Maybe it's when someone has decided that there's a possibility that Laci may not be coming back.

GERAGOS: Okay. As far as you know, it appears, at least, however, that virtually everybody who was close to her at one time or another in the media referred to Laci in the past tense within the first week; isn't that correct?

GROGAN: Based on the documents that you showed me, some of those people, if those quotes are correct, said things similar to that, yes.

Probably the biggest mistake Grace made is when she said Laci was found first, then the baby.  She obviously is not keen on details -- at least not on factual details.  Perhaps that's because she focuses so much on irrelevant, exaggerated, and incorrect details that she doesn't have any attention span left for reality. 

All in all, it was much ado about nothing -- a re-investigation that merely regurgitated old myths and misinformation.  No new evidence; no new insight.  Just the same ole, same ole. 

Nancy Grace re-investigates the Scott Peterson case

Tonight, Friday 11-9-12, at 8 pm EST, Nancy Grace will revisit the Scott Peterson case on HLN.

THE SCOTT PETERSON CASE

Love, lies, an extramarital affair, a secret life… and murder. The true story of Laci & Scott Peterson. After a seemingly loving husband and expectant father is convicted of murdering his pregnant wife we are still no closer to knowing what really happened that fateful night. Did Laci look into her husbands eyes when he killed her? After living a secret double life for awhile, why did Scott Peterson turn to murder? The truth revealed as Nancy re-investigates one of America’s most infamous crimes.

Here's a tip, Grace -- if after a trial you still don't know what happened, hmmm maybe the wrong person was on trial.  Think so?  Possible?  Nah, you know he's guilty so that ends that.  That leaves only the question of whether you will reveal some new misinformation, or simply regurgitate the same misinformation you have spewed for years?  

The facebook page, Scott Peterson Case - Truth Be Told, will be critiquing Grace's re-investigation.

See you all there . . .

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.