7/22 - 7/31

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by bookclubfan


They didn't hate Scott and voiced their disgust at him. There is a difference. No hate verdict, imo.

jmo

:seeya: [/*]What is the difference?

Two people were murdered. Who is in favor of that? Hopefully all jurors hate that.

[bookie]

Originally posted by bookclubfan
Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
And it will over turn the original verdict, a new trial ordered and this time it will be a real one.
New and provable evidence will be provided that was NOT known at the first trial and it will PROVE Scott did NOT murder his wife and leads now may reveal the real killer.


Hello, the verdict would have been turned over by now. Catch up. New and provable evidence? The secret one that not even Scott knows about. The real killer is on death row. Good luck with that pipe dream of a post.

jmo

:seeya: [/*]


How would the verdict be overturned since the appeal/s haven't been heard?

[bookie]

Originally posted by Lexus
For those who think Scott's appeal is coming up soon:

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=362852&doc_no=

No attorney has been appointed as yet. Here's what it says about the first (direct) apapeal

Anyone sentenced to death is required to file a direct appeal with the California Supreme Court. This appeal may not be waived. The direct appeal has to do with anything within the court record. It covers things like change of venue, evidentiary issues, juror removal, or any judges ruling.

Perfecting the Record

The appeal begins with the attorneys ensuring that the record of all court proceedings is accurate and complete. Even though the record is certified as the trial progresses a final look is necessary. This process can take a year or more. At the completion of this task the record is filed with the California Supreme Court. This starts the clock on the next step; the Appellants Opening Brief.

Appellants Opening Brief

The Appellants Opening Brief (AOB) is the basic statement of why the court should reverse the conviction. The AOB is to be filed within forty days of the submission of the record. Attorneys often request and receive many thirty day extensions. The actual filing of the brief may take more than a year
Respondents Brief

Following the AOB the prosecutors file a response The Respondents Brief (RB).
While the law reads that this is to be in within thirty days, again granting extensions of time is almost a given. It can commonly be six months before the RB is in.

Reply Brief

The third and final brief is the Reply Brief filed by the appellant. This brief is due in twenty days, but again, delays are normal. Look for at least another 6 months before this is submitted to the court.

Oral Arguments

Once the Reply Brief is filed, opening arguments are scheduled to take place before the California Supreme Court. It can be up to two years before oral arguments are heard. Each side gets to argue for 30-45 minutes.

Decision

The courts decision is due ninety days after oral arguments. The court can affirm the conviction. The court can find harmless errors and still affirm the conviction and the sentence. They can affirm the conviction and reduce the sentence. They can over turn the conviction and grant a new trial, or they can overturn the conviction and bar it from re-trial. The losing side may request a rehearing and the court can take up to three months to decide if they will grant it.

The total time for the direct appeal would be four years if rapid.

Scott has been 3 years in San Quentin and there is still no attorney appoint to do the direct appeal.

So I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on the appeal [/*]


Inmates do not have to wait for appointed attorneys. They can, and have in this case, hire their own appelate attorneys. This was discussed many times on CTV and other news programs right after the verdict.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by bookie



Inmates do not have to wait for appointed attorneys. They can, and have in this case, hire their own appelate attorneys. This was discussed many times on CTV and other news programs right after the verdict. [/*]Yet, there is a huge backload of cases.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by bookclubfan
You have to ask mccannie that question, not I.

Maybe she can site a case that has been over turned because the jury was rightfully disgusted and gave their opinions on the case "after" having to convict a guilty man who murdered his wife and child?

jmo [/*]Excuse me, I thought it was you who said there was no difference. Yes, I would like to see a case where the jurors said they loved murder. That murdering two people didn't affect them emotionally. I can't imagine many people like that.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Yes, they were blinded by hate, and the interview right after the verdict reveals the darkness of their hate.

MHO [/*]There hate was the normal respect for law and disgust at such actions which are not appreciated by most citizens.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
One last post.
IMO there is a connection with some of those arrested and HI robberies and that Laci was in the cross fire. That makes it on topic. Scared of what may become of this? By the way it way Judge Ladine who sealed the files in Scott case that the modesto newspaper ask to have them unsealed.He died in his office.Do you know who replaced him?MG had him subpoenaed to testify about the wire tapping.
McCallister who was Scotts original attorney was also Hollaway`s attorney and defended him in the case where Hollaway
shot and killed a burglar.He was acquitted in that case. He is also a very good friend of the main character in the FBI arrests. Why did McCallister not want to defend Scott? [/*]

I am not afraid of any of this. These people did not live near Scott and Laci and they weren't burglars and their criminal activity occured in Denair, not Modesto

And Judge Ladine did NOT die in his office. He died sitting on the bench. So much for your source of information.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
One last post.
IMO there is a connection with some of those arrested and HI robberies and that Laci was in the cross fire. That makes it on topic. Scared of what may become of this? By the way it way Judge Ladine who sealed the files in Scott case that the modesto newspaper ask to have them unsealed.He died in his office.Do you know who replaced him?MG had him subpoenaed to testify about the wire tapping.
McCallister who was Scotts original attorney was also Hollaway`s attorney and defended him in the case where Hollaway
shot and killed a burglar.He was acquitted in that case. He is also a very good friend of the main character in the FBI arrests. Why did McCallister not want to defend Scott? [/*]

McAllister did not defend Scott because Lee and Jackie hired their high-profile Hollywood attorney. Geesh

[bookie]

There was supposed to be a hearing on the 21st to set a new trial date. Has anyone heard if a new date was set?

[Lexus]

Originally posted by bookie
There was supposed to be a hearing on the 21st to set a new trial date. Has anyone heard if a new date was set? [/*]
According to the Bee that was also postponed.

Scott Peterson's civil court trial was pushed back after a motion to continue the trial was filed Friday. Lawyers will meet in Stanislaus County Superior Court on July 21, when Judge Roger Beauchesne will set a new trial date. The wrongful death lawsuit filed by Peterson's former in-laws was planned to begin July 8 and should last about five weeks. Peterson was convicted of murdering his wife, Laci, and unborn son, Conner, then dumping her body in San Francisco Bay during a Christmas Eve 2002 fishing trip. The jurors said he should die, but the verdicts have been appealed.

http://www.modbee.com/local/story/338217.html

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by insighter
To Bookie and MC'65 (or any other NG for that matter), to the best of your knowledge (or even best guess) what will DRISP's defense be at the civil trial? TIA

Please remember that this is a civil trial and not a "second criminal trial!!!" [/*]
I don`t believe there will be a civil trial. No defense necessary.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by bookclubfan
It was already proven Mcannie is not being truthful about the jury. Lies won't free Scott, can't believe you need reminding daily. You took one snippet of the interview and slammed them. Also, you lie when stating Ps have secret info to prove Scott innocent. Put up or stop running to CW when it you who is breaking the rules.

jmo

:rolleyes: [/*]What gives you the right to call another poster a liar when you can NOT prove it. You have NO idea what the Peterson`s or their lawyers have that will prove Scott Innocent? You are going to have to bring out another one of those names if you keep breaking TOS. Calling someone a liar is certainly just that.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by bookclubfan
Get informed on the civil trial. You were already told there will be one. Did you not comprehend it? All Scott and Ps have to do is pay up if they chose not to have one. You going to attend? I'm sure your made up info will come in handy.


imo

:lol: [/*]
Well know it all,maybe you can give us the date of trial. There is NONE....... Get informed.

[HI_CYCLE]

I am bringing this over from yesterday`s board:
"Lexus
Member

Registered: Jul 2008
Location: Home is where the heart is
Posts: 405

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
One last post.
IMO there is a connection with some of those arrested and HI robberies and that Laci was in the cross fire. That makes it on topic. Scared of what may become of this? By the way it way Judge Ladine who sealed the files in Scott case that the modesto newspaper ask to have them unsealed.He died in his office.Do you know who replaced him?MG had him subpoenaed to testify about the wire tapping.
McCallister who was Scotts original attorney was also Hollaway`s attorney and defended him in the case where Hollaway
shot and killed a burglar.He was acquitted in that case. He is also a very good friend of the main character in the FBI arrests. Why did McCallister not want to defend Scott? [/*]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I am not afraid of any of this. These people did not live near Scott and Laci and they weren't burglars and their criminal activity occured in Denair, not Modesto

And Judge Ladine did NOT die in his office. He died sitting on the bench. So much for your source of information.

.................................................. .................................................. ..


http://www.modbee.com/local/story/9336023p-10243132c.html

Stanislaus judge dies at work
Ladine collapses while researching case; coronary artery disease

By MICHAEL G. MOONEY
BEE STAFF WRITER


Last Updated: October 26, 2004, 06:07:26 AM PDT


Superior Court Judge Wray Ladine died Monday morning after collapsing
while doing legal research at the Stanislaus County Courthouse. He was
53.
Sgt. Darin Gharat, chief deputy coroner, said Ladine's death was
caused by coronary artery disease.



Sheriff's Sgt. Robert Watson said Ladine was stricken between 8:20 and
8:25 Monday morning as he sat in a chair researching one of his cases
before starting his scheduled morning court session.


"He was sitting near his office," Watson said, "when someone heard the
judge's pen fall to the floor. One of the lawyers who was there
alerted bailiff Dave Swanson.
It was clear (Ladine) was in distress."


Watson said another deputy quickly called 911.
.................................................. .......
So much for your source of information.
Maybe this will help.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by bookclubfan
Why would they need to delay if the Peterson's have info that proves Scott innocent according to mcannie? Why would Scott would plead the 5th if he has info that would prove him innocent?

jmo


:rolleyes: [/*] I don`t know,ask Sharon and her attorney. She is in control of this law suit. Have you heard a word about the law suit recently? NOTHING on the court dockets that I know of.:read:

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by mcannie1965
Wecht shocked by Peterson sentence


The jurors who sentenced Scott Peterson to death for killing his wife and unborn child "went wild" and were "out of control," Pittsburgh forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril H. Wecht said Monday. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_283079.html

MHO [/*] "There is going to be a new trial," he told reporters. "I will wager you will all be grandparents -- every one of you here -- before Scott Peterson is executed."

That's a safe bet for anyone convicted of murder in California.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
"There is going to be a new trial," he told reporters. "I will wager you will all be grandparents -- every one of you here -- before Scott Peterson is executed."

That's a safe bet for anyone convicted of murder in California. [/*]Luke, I think we all know,the wheels of Justice is very slow. Sad but true.

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by mcannie1965
Wecht shocked by Peterson sentence


The jurors who sentenced Scott Peterson to death for killing his wife and unborn child "went wild" and were "out of control," Pittsburgh forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril H. Wecht said Monday. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_283079.html

MHO [/*]

And in the article Wecht says... there's absolutely no physical evidence he could testify to for the defense! Meaning he COULDN'T testify that Conner lived past Dec 24.

Scott Peterson is right where he should be, and he'll be staying there. I think even the Peterson's know that. They don't have to worry about that reward money going anywhere.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by bookclubfan
He stated this in 2004. Guess he lost that bet. What happened to the new trial? It would have happened by now. imo [/*]What kind of kool-aid are you drinking today?:lol:

[Lexus]

Originally posted by bookclubfan


Link doesn't work

Wecht is not credible, imo. Here is one that does.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/wecht/trial/

:read: [/*]

Wecht is not crediblt is an understatement. He PUTS himself into the media and waxes like he knows the case. Just like that link of him discounting Dr, Peterson's autopsy before the autopsy was revealed and THREE MONTHS before Wecht was allowed to view the body.

ZIPPO CREDIBILITY. He's become a joke. No one believes him. He has gone on TV giving his opinions in cases where information is sealed and gag orders in place. He did it on Ana Nicole Smith. He never saw that body - he never did any tests on it - yet he's an expert? He's an expert blow-hard imo

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


That is right! There is absoulely no physical evidence to dispute: He meant the body of Conner Peterson:

I posted the page numbers in his book where he states why he didn't testify, that he agreed with BP''s autopsy findings report, which lists Conner's estimated 9 month gestational age. He meant he could add nothing more to Brian Peterson's testimony that Conner was full term. It is all in Wecht's book!

He agrees with Brian Peterson that Conner was estimated at 9 months gestational age! Wecht took measurements and he stated the measurements were in the range of a full term baby.

Scott is not where he should be; he is where a hate verdict put him. He will walk free.

mho [/*]

If he couldn't disagree with Dr. Peterson, he agreed on the 33-38 week age range and he agrees on an ESTIMATED age, not an actual age. He agrees with the maceration, which is proof that Conner was protected in an uterus-type atmosphere until very shortly until he was EXPELLED from the uterus. You just shot yourself in the foot.

He didn't testify because he couldn't prove Geragos's theory that the baby was full term. That was what Geragos hung his hat on and tried to prove with his "expert" (joke) Dr. March. In other words, he didn't dispute any of Peterson's opinions.

If he could have proved something other than Peterson's theory of Conner's remains and Laci's remains, he would have testified. He could not; so he did not testify.he meant he could not add anything more to Brian Peterson's testimony

Brian Peterson's testimony said that Conner was protected in Laci's uterus until expelled shortly before being found. It was testified to twice that Laci's body was consistent with being in the water for 3-6 monthsl, not TWO months. Given that Laci's body was in the water for 3-6 months, Conner had to be in her uterus in the water for 3-6 months.

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


That is right! There is absoulely no physical evidence to dispute: He meant the body of Conner Peterson:

I posted the page numbers in his book where he states why he didn't testify, that he agreed with BP''s autopsy findings report, which lists Conner's estimated 9 month gestational age. He meant he could add nothing more to Brian Peterson's testimony that Conner was full term. It is all in Wecht's book!

He agrees with Brian Peterson that Conner was estimated at 9 months gestational age! Wecht took measurements and he stated the measurements were in the range of a full term baby.

Scott is not where he should be; he is where a hate verdict put him. He will walk free.

mho [/*]

Wecht was hired by the defense. If he could have testified that Conner was a full term baby, why wouldn't he have? This is how expert witnesses work. You hire one. S/he reviews your information and evidence and gives you a report. If the expert says no way does the evidence support your defense, then you don't put him/her on the stand.

So again, why didn't Wecht get called to testify? Why oh why was the best that Geragos could come up with was that clown that figures conception dates are calculated from when the expenting mother tells her friends she is pregnant? I'll save you the effort of figuring it out. Wecht didn't testtify because he couldn't. Wecht is well aware of the consequences of giving false testimony.

Conner's femur length points exactly to one date for his death. Dec 24. Until someone is ready to disprove that with evidence, not just endless jabbering, "full term, autopsy report, full term". Until someone can show evidence why Devore's calculations are way off (and don't hold your breath), SP is gonna sit.

[HI_CYCLE]

Lexus,did you read my post that proved your information completely wrong on where Judge Ladine died. How many of the Judges involved in SP trial have died? And,let`s see,Oh yea,The head DA,brazelnton(sp) is dead also. Convenient for the DA that this young Judge,with no known health problem`s, happen to have a heart attack. Now he can NEVER testify in any trial to come about the possible illegal wire taping that was discussed without a court reporter in room. Strange things have happen since 2002.:shrug:

[Lexus]

Originally posted by Nightowl


Wecht was hired by the defense. If he could have testified that Conner was a full term baby, why wouldn't he have? This is how expert witnesses work. You hire one. S/he reviews your information and evidence and gives you a report. If the expert says no way does the evidence support your defense, then you don't put him/her on the stand.

So again, why didn't Wecht get called to testify? Why oh why was the best that Geragos could come up with was that clown that figures conception dates are calculated from when the expenting mother tells her friends she is pregnant? I'll save you the effort of figuring it out. Wecht didn't testtify because he couldn't. Wecht is well aware of the consequences of giving false testimony.

Conner's femur length points exactly to one date for his death. Dec 24. Until someone is ready to disprove that with evidence, not just endless jabbering, "full term, autopsy report, full term". Until someone can show evidence why Devore's calculations are way off (and don't hold your breath), SP is gonna sit. [/*]

I agree except for one thing. I was the person disproving the eidence to have some credentials. Someone I have a problem with a person on a message board with no credentials trying to be smarter than someone with a PhD who has years of study in a certain field.

And, by the way, the autopsy report covers a lot more than just that cover page that Mcannie keeps posting. There are photographs that the jury saw that we did not. There is also very detailed descriptions (in medical terms) of organs and condition that we are not privvy to. So there is a lot more than an "estimatede gestational age 9 months (33-38 weeks based on anthropologic measurements). Don't forget that ridiculous statement that Wecht made on LKL that the tear on Conner's abdomen was a result of cutting out the baby. Since Wecht agrees with the autopsy, he agrees that the tear was post-mortem. He also has to agree that Conner could still had meconium in his anus and that there were no cut marks on Laci's body. He didn't testify because he agreed with the autopsy of Conner, but he DISAGRED with the autopsy of Laci? OR does he not say anything about that?

The age of Conner is VERY dependent on the condition of Laci.

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by mcannie1965



He gave the reasons why he didn't testify in his book: Tales From The Morgue, pages 34, 35.

He stated that he (himself) did measurements and Conner was within the range of a full term baby.

Wecht didn't want to disprove Brian Peterson's autopsy findings report that Conner was an estimated 9 month gestational age fetus: WECHT AGREES WITH IT! That is why he didn't testify. He said it was better coming from the prosecution's own witness: Brian Peterson about Conner's age.

9 months is full term.

MHO [/*]

Peterson never said Conner was full term. But assuming for a second you are correct, then how, exactly, would Wecht agreeing with the prosecution's own witness DISPROVE IT? Answer that, how does two people saying something make it less believable than one person saying it?

No one from either side testified that Conner was full term. No one, no where. Preliminary inspection said 33-38 weeks. Further narrowed down by subsequent examination to Dec 24 as the calculated date of death. Deal with it. Or don't. Everyone on the jury figured it out. And that is what counts.

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by mcannie1965



GERAGOS: Doctor Peterson, I had asked you before we talked at the break. You had said that you had created a scenario that the baby could have been in the uterus in the marine environment; is that correct?

PETERSON: Correct.

GERAGOS: And I think I have asked you, I assume it's still your opinion, that it is possible for something else to have been protecting the baby, aside from Laci's uterus; is that correct?

PETERSON: Sure.

http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/TranscriptIndex.htm

MHO [/*]

"Possible" doesn't mean "likely". If there is a simple explanation, the fetus was protected from the environment by the mother's body, then you give that much more credibility than something like... Laci kidnapped by Satanist burglers on motorcycle vans who went to the bay to dispose of the bodies 3 months later because they were so embarrassed that the "cesarean section thru the ribcage" technique was such a failure that they wanted to frame Scott for..... :rolleyes:

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


It wouldn't "disapprove" it. Now if you want more answers go to Wecht's book.

I have provided the book title with the page numbers where Cyril Wecht gives his reasons why he didn/'t testify.

Full term is 9 months. 9 months estimated gestational age is listed on the autopsy findings report.

mho [/*]

Originally posted by mcannie1965
Wecht didn't want to disprove Brian Peterson's autopsy findings report that Conner was an estimated 9 month gestational age fetus: WECHT AGREES WITH IT! That is why he didn't testify. He said it was better coming from the prosecution's own witness: Brian Peterson about Conner's age. [/*]


If it wouldn't disprove it, then why didn't he testify? Multiple experts testifying to the same thing is a plus in the real world.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by Nightowl


Wecht was hired by the defense. If he could have testified that Conner was a full term baby, why wouldn't he have? This is how expert witnesses work. You hire one. S/he reviews your information and evidence and gives you a report. If the expert says no way does the evidence support your defense, then you don't put him/her on the stand.

So again, why didn't Wecht get called to testify? Why oh why was the best that Geragos could come up with was that clown that figures conception dates are calculated from when the expenting mother tells her friends she is pregnant? I'll save you the effort of figuring it out. Wecht didn't testtify because he couldn't. Wecht is well aware of the consequences of giving false testimony.

Conner's femur length points exactly to one date for his death. Dec 24. Until someone is ready to disprove that with evidence, not just endless jabbering, "full term, autopsy report, full term". Until someone can show evidence why Devore's calculations are way off (and don't hold your breath), SP is gonna sit. [/*]

Weren't Wecht and Lee waiting in the hotel to be called?

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by HI_CYCLE

,,, [/*]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by Lexus


Weren't Wecht and Lee waiting in the hotel to be called? [/*]

I don't believe so. It would be odd to have even one, much less 2, high profile professional witnesses on deck, then for some reason, not call them. Looks fishy, so to speak. Because the natural question would be "why not call them? what are you afraid of?" Particularly when the witness you DID call was openly being laughed at by the jury while he was testifying.

If Geragos thought he could get ANYTHING positive out of Wecht or Lee, they would have been on the stand in a New York minute. Geragos promised a lot of things he didn't deliver. Several witnesses that would testify that they saw Laci after the 23rd, or who could say she knew about the boat. He even said he was going to show who the "real" killer was.

Well, ok, he did sort of deliver on that last bit. ;)

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Why would he want to "disprove" what he agrees with: That Conner was estimated 9 months gestational age, and he agreed with Brian Peterson's autopsy findings about Conner's age. As to why he didn't testify:

Here is the source for why Wecht didn't testifiy: "Tales From The Morgue" by Cyril Wecht, MD. JD And Mark Curriden with Angela Powell. He discusses the Scott Peterson case pages 17 to 40.

mho [/*]

I asked you. You're the one that said he didn't want to disprove what Dr. Peterson said. Can't you read your own quoted statements?

[bookie]

Originally posted by bookclubfan
He stated this in 2004. Guess he lost that bet. What happened to the new trial? It would have happened by now. imo [/*]


The appeals haven't started yet. When the verdict is overturned there will be a new trial and I firmly believe several of the appelate issues will cause the appelate courts to overturn the verdict.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by bookclubfan
He stated this in 2004. Guess he lost that bet. What happened to the new trial? It would have happened by now. imo [/*]I meant the bet, the second part.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
Luke, I think we all know,the wheels of Justice is very slow. Sad but true. [/*]Yes, few on Death Row are actually executed.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by Nightowl


And in the article Wecht says... there's absolutely no physical evidence he could testify to for the defense! Meaning he COULDN'T testify that Conner lived past Dec 24.

Scott Peterson is right where he should be, and he'll be staying there. I think even the Peterson's know that. They don't have to worry about that reward money going anywhere. [/*]DITTO!

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by Lexus


Weren't Wecht and Lee waiting in the hotel to be called? [/*]I think that was an idle threat proposed by Geragos, as if thye had something of value to say.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by bookclubfan
He stated this in 2004. Guess he lost that bet. What happened to the new trial? It would have happened by now. imo [/*]Any new trial is many years away.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by mcannie1965




People who read Wecht's book know he agrees with Brian Peterson's autopsy findings report, estimating Conner's gestational age at 9 months.

Cyril Wecht did his own meaurements on Conner Peterson, and said the measurements were within the range of a full term baby. Nothing is going to change the autopsy findings, and what Wecht Stated in his book. He stated Conner was FULL TERM! THIS IS IN WECHT'S BOOK! Nothing will change the autopsy findings report with Conner's estimated 9 month gestational age, signed by BRIAN PETERSON.

mho [/*]Regardless, Scott was convicted.

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by mcannie1965




People who read Wecht's book know he agrees with Brian Peterson's autopsy findings report, estimating Conner's gestational age at 9 months.

Cyril Wecht did his own meaurements on Conner Peterson, and said the measurements were within the range of a full term baby. Nothing is going to change the autopsy findings, and what Wecht Stated in his book. He stated Conner was FULL TERM! THIS IS IN WECHT'S BOOK! Nothing will change the autopsy findings report with Conner's estimated 9 month gestational age, signed by BRIAN PETERSON.

mho [/*]

"Within range of" and "estimated" don't mean full term.

Since Wecht says he agreed with Dr. Peterson's findings, how about I give you a little help:
http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/PetersonBrian-Trial.htm

PETERSON: Conner's body was, relatively speaking, in much better shape with respect to most of the parts being there, compared to Laci's where, as you recall, we were missing substantial soft tissue, and even some bones from the arms and the legs. Conner's body had undergone a similar type process with respect to autolysis, maceration, body soaking in fluid, and so forth. But there wasn't quite the evidence that it had been exposed so much to the other physical forces that we discussed yesterday, namely the tidal action and animal feeding. So there were some similarities, but again, to my eye, marked differences, particularly including, particularly because Conner was so much smaller. And my thinking was that as small he was and as softened as he was, that if he had spent substantial unprotected time in the water, like Laci did, he would have been eaten. There simply wouldn't have been anything left.

And Wecht agrees....

PETERSON: I did. And ultimately this came by comparing the two autopsies and by comparing the condition of Laci's uterus to the rest of her body. My thinking was that Conner had likely been protected by that uterus, and ultimately, with time in the water and with tidal action, the uterus was abraded open. At that time Conner was released and ended up washing ashore very shortly thereafter.

And Wecht agrees....

PETERSON: My opinion is that when Laci was deposited in the marina environment, Conner was still within Laci. And ultimately, because of the effects of environment, animal feeding and decomposition, Laci's front degraded sufficiently to allow access of the uterus to the outside world, and ultimately Conner.

And Wecht agrees....

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by bookclubfan
What new trial? :read: [/*]Any new trial is many years away.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by bookclubfan


Yes and Wecht is proven not to be credible so cares what is in his book. It is meaningless.

mho [/*]Exactly!

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


The verdict is not the final word. It's not over until the last appeal.

mho [/*]Even after the last appeal, murderers have been released and murdered again. :mad:

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by bookclubfan
No need to scream. There will be no new trial. I'm asking you what new trial since you claim there will be one. His appeal? Is that what you mean? [/*]I was replying to another post concerning a quote:

Originally posted by bookclubfan
He stated this in 2004. Guess he lost that bet. What happened to the new trial? It would have happened by now. imo [/*]

THAT TRIAL. Don't mean to yell but it appears you overlooked part of the discussion.

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Wecht agrees with the estimated 9 month gestational age of Conner. His did his own measurements and Conner was within the range of a full term baby.

He also stated in an interview that Conner could have been cut out of Laci's womb.

If Conner could inside Laci when she was died, Conner was a 9 month estimated gestational age. Inside the uterus or cut out of the uterus, he was 9 months estimated gestational age. 9 months is full term.

She lived after 24 December 2002. Conner's 9 month estimated gestational age proves Laci didn't die on 24 December.

mho [/*]

Then enlighten us as to why, if he had such different conclusions, that Wecht never testified. I don't care what he put in his book to try to shill it. He didn't testify. After being hired by the defense, and reviewing the reports, and performing his own autopsy, he wasn't called to testify. Even after March was laughed at while on the stand.... no Wecht. Since Wecht had a chance to testify and didn't, why should someone believe what he says now?

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by bookclubfan
I didn't overlook part of the discussion. There will be no new trial and there certainly won't be one because Wecht stated it back in 2004. You said a new trial would be years away. Do tell? What new trial? That is what I was asking you.

mho [/*]Yes, that trial.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965




People who read Wecht's book know he agrees with Brian Peterson's autopsy findings report, estimating Conner's gestational age at 9 months.

Cyril Wecht did his own meaurements on Conner Peterson, and said the measurements were within the range of a full term baby. Nothing is going to change the autopsy findings, and what Wecht Stated in his book. He stated Conner was FULL TERM! THIS IS IN WECHT'S BOOK! Nothing will change the autopsy findings report with Conner's estimated 9 month gestational age, signed by BRIAN PETERSON.



mho [/*]

ARe you aware that the particular page you love to quote in the autopsy is only a small part of teh entire autopsy?

Can you also give me the exact page thatPeople who read Wecht's book know he agrees with Brian Peterson's autopsy findings report, estimating Conner's gestational age at 9 months. is on as I am about to go to the library and I want to verifiy the EXACT quote.

Also, please tell me HOW Wecht did his own measurements as the femur had already been measured by Dr. Galloway and that was in April, I believe. Wecht didn't even see the body until August. That's a pretty good trick - measuring a dismembered body. I say that Wecht used only Dr. Peterson's measurements and report, he reviewed it and did not agree with anything in it.

Since Wecht did NOT tesitfy, nothing he says can be assuredly truthful since he wasn't under oath when he wrote his book.

Hitching your wagon to a falling star, I'd say.

That page number of what you said is what??????

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


That is right! There is absoulely no physical evidence to dispute: He meant the body of Conner Peterson:

I posted the page numbers in his book where he states why he didn't testify, that he agreed with BP''s autopsy findings report, which lists Conner's estimated 9 month gestational age. He meant he could add nothing more to Brian Peterson's testimony that Conner was full term. It is all in Wecht's book!

He agrees with Brian Peterson that Conner was estimated at 9 months gestational age! Wecht took measurements and he stated the measurements were in the range of a full term baby.

Scott is not where he should be; he is where a hate verdict put him. He will walk free.

mho [/*]

What is the name of this book - he has written several.

[Lexus]

Here's one review of Wecht on Peterson:

Scott Peterson: Wecht was hired by the defense to do an autopsy review on Laci and Connor's bodies. Wecht found no evidence pointing to Scott, but did observe that the body was found only one mile from where Scott went fishing, leaving only two explanations: 1)Scott did it, or 2)Someone else did it and tried to frame Scott. Since the latter seems extremely implausible, one is left with the conclusion that Scott did it, even though Dr. Wecht was amazed that anyone would be convicted solely on circumstantial evidence.

OMG Wecht was amazed that anyone was convicted solely on circumstantial evidence? He KNOWS DOGGONE WELL THAT FORENSICS (his field) IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

I find it interesting that he comments on Chandra Levy. He was not called on that case and he never examined that body at all. Her body was skeletal and he's not a forensix anthropologist.

[Lexus]

You can bet that WEcht won't be testifyin in the civil trial. I believe they can introduce the official autopsy of Conner and Laci in thie trial without calling the actual person who did the autopsy. It's an official document after all.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
Even after the last appeal, murderers have been released and murdered again. :mad: [/*]Really? Like who?

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


He said in his book that there is not a shred of physical, medical, or forensic evidence that connects Scott to the disappearance or death of Laci.

There was no circumstantial evidence to connect Scott to the killing of Laci and Conner. There was only a half baked theory, speculation, and supposition by the prosecution.

Scott is innocent. He did not kill Laci and Conner.

mho [/*]

Yes he did
meo

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


When Wecht did his own measurements and the measurments fell within the range of a full term baby, spelled out this means he agrees with Dr. Brian Peterson.

Wecht stated in his book, there is no way from examining the bodies of Conner what day or time they died. The could have died, according to Wecht the night of December 23, the afternoon of December 24, or the morning of December 27! His educated guess was they both had been dead for two months or probably longer! But How much longer he does not state! It could have been two weeks...or two days! NOBODY can give the exact time or day of death! Not even Brian Peterson!

Now if you want anymore information read his book. I have given page numbers in previous posts.

MHO [/*]

How can Wecht measure a dismembered body? He was also not allowed to touch the body - just review and observe and take xrays

He did a visual was all - and read the resports. I guess you missed Dr. Galloway's comments abouyt how you can't get an accurate crownheel measusrsement in a dead baby..

Are the pages you gave in th hardback or paperback version of the book. You never cite the title of teh book which means you are not giving the man the credit you seem to think he is due.

But in those dates that you say he said were possible, none of them were February 10th or 16th were they? I guess Wecht knows that 2.55 lbs is NOT a full term baby.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Lexus
Here's one review of Wecht on Peterson:

Scott Peterson: Wecht was hired by the defense to do an autopsy review on Laci and Connor's bodies. Wecht found no evidence pointing to Scott, but did observe that the body was found only one mile from where Scott went fishing, leaving only two explanations: 1)Scott did it, or 2)Someone else did it and tried to frame Scott. Since the latter seems extremely implausible, one is left with the conclusion that Scott did it, even though Dr. Wecht was amazed that anyone would be convicted solely on circumstantial evidence.

OMG Wecht was amazed that anyone was convicted solely on circumstantial evidence? He KNOWS DOGGONE WELL THAT FORENSICS (his field) IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

I find it interesting that he comments on Chandra Levy. He was not called on that case and he never examined that body at all. Her body was skeletal and he's not a forensix anthropologist. [/*]
Is there a link to what you have above as Wecht's 'take' on Peterson?

The CE Wecht is amazed about does not include any FE - just Scott's behavior. :shrug:

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by Lexus


What is the name of this book - he has written several. [/*]Tales from the Morgue: Forensic Answers to Nine Famous Cases Including The Scott Peterson & Chandra Levy Cases by Cyril, M.D. Wecht, Angela Powell, Mark Curriden

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


When Wecht did his own measurements and the measurments fell within the range of a full term baby, spelled out this means he agrees with Dr. Brian Peterson.

Wecht stated in his book, there is no way from examining the bodies of Conner what day or time they died. The could have died, according to Wecht the night of December 23, the afternoon of December 24, or the morning of December 27! His educated guess was they both had been dead for two months or probably longer! But How much longer he does not state! It could have been two weeks...or two days! NOBODY can give the exact time or day of death! Not even Brian Peterson!

Now if you want anymore information read his book. I have given page numbers in previous posts.

MHO [/*]This is important. He states Dec 23, 24 and 27th and then says two motnhs or PROBABLY longer. Did he use the word probably?

HE is not qualified to determine how long a body has been in water. I believe Dr. Galloway and Dr. Stephens who both say 3 months or more in water. I guess Dr. Wecht is now an expert in forensic anthropology and is considered an expert on water disposal. How many cases has he been called on to determine length of time in water? I thing you are paraphrasing and thereby mis-stating what he says.

I will read his book. I will properly ciite his quots also. IO do not believe for an instant that he refers to conner as a fuill term baby, since he agrees with Dr. Peterson, and peterson never said he was a full term BABY.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by alter ego

Is there a link to what you have above as Wecht's 'take' on Peterson?

The CE Wecht is amazed about does not include any FE - just Scott's behavior. :shrug: [/*]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/159102353X/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

It's the 3rd review down.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by alter ego

Is there a link to what you have above as Wecht's 'take' on Peterson?

The CE Wecht is amazed about does not include any FE - just Scott's behavior. :shrug: [/*]

Not true. If there was no forensic evidence, we would not know that it was Laci and Conner for one thing. Forensic Evidence IS Circumstantial evidence. The only other kind of evidence legally is direct evidence which is eyewitness testmiony. There was no DIRECT evidence, but there was forensic evidence in this case.