7/22 - 7/31

[margaritaville]

CNN's Larry King will be the host of a comedy show in Modesto in October to raise money for a fund established by the mother of murder victim Laci Peterson.

"Laughing for Laci" will feature TV improv experts Colin Mochrie and Brad Sherwood and stand-up comic Wendy Liebman, according to a Web site run by Peterson's survivors.

"It will be my honor" to serve as host of the event, the talk show giant said last week on his show, "Larry King Live," while interviewing Peterson's mother, Sharon Rocha of Modesto.

http://www.modbee.com/local/story/367704.html

[Shells2]

That is very cool of him to do - and he is right - it IS an honor!

:beer: :beer:

[wandering]

Originally posted by Shells2
That is very cool of him to do - and he is right - it IS an honor!

:beer: :beer: [/*]ITA. Good job, Larry. Wish I could go, I'd love to see LK in person.

[Land Shark®]

Peterson was arrested on April 18, 2003 in La Jolla, California in the parking lot of a golf course, where he claimed to be meeting his father and brother for a game of golf. At the time of his arrest, Peterson was carrying $15,000 in cash, had four cell phones, multiple credit cards belonging to various family members, a vast array of camping equipment, including knives, implements for warming food, tents, tarps, a dozen pairs of shoes, several changes of clothes, a gun, a map to Frey's workplace that had been printed that same day, a shovel, rope, 24 blister packs of sleeping pills, Viagra, and his brother's driver's license.

Scott Peterson ~ Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/scott-peterson)

[caphill]

Originally posted by mcannie1965
What evidence do you think should be entered into the Civil Trial? [/*]

I believe there is limited resources for a full presentation of many unresolved issues and testimony in the criminal trial. Because of lack of resources I think the defense should focus on hard evidence.

Hard or direct evidence, IMO, is the scientific and medical autopsy evidence. Calling Dr. Peterson and Dr. Gallowway as a defense witness. If they are called under subpoena I don't think they are required to paid as an independent expert witness. Also I would subpeona the old prosecution witness that gave the tide/currents testimony.(Sorry have forgotten his name) Again making him the defense witness. Have him explain why he couldn't put Conner on that shore from the area where Scott was fishing.

I would directly examine them for explanation and layman understanding of their documented reports and ask for clarification of their medical statements. I would also ask the unasked questions pertaining to prenatal and post natal characteristics of a premature versus mature fetus.

After their testimony I would have one paid expert to refute or agree with their testimony. If direct evidence from the baby clearly supports he lived longer than 32-32 weeks based on known and accept medical data, I wold rest my case.

The plaintiff can be expected to bring forth their case of the usual
non direct evidence that got Scott convicted in the criminial trial. The defense has the privlege to cross examine them and that doesn't cost the defense any addition money.

I would like to see the defense obtain pics of dead fetus in the womb of a dead mother for any period of time. Let the jury see first hand how much a dead fetus remains intact in a dead and decompositing body. I would think research with pics on a dead pregnant animal with fetus still inside the uterus would also work.

That would give real meaning to a picture is worth a thousand words.

[Stuy]

Originally posted by caphill

Hard or direct evidence, IMO, is the scientific and medical autopsy evidence. Calling Dr. Peterson and Dr. Gallowway as a defense witness. If they are called under subpoena I don't think they are required to paid as an independent expert witness.
[/*]

If Scott's lawyer subpoenas Dr. Peterson and Dr. Galloway then they would have to pay them and expert witnesses don't come cheap.

Does Scott Peterson have the funds to pay for expert witnesses like the two mentioned about? I really don't think so.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Stuy


If Scott's lawyer subpoenas Dr. Peterson and Dr. Galloway then they would have to pay them and expert witnesses don't come cheap.

Does Scott Peterson have the funds to pay for expert witnesses like the two mentioned about? I really don't think so. [/*]


I don't believe if the two witnesses from the criminal trial were under subpoena as material witnesses that would get or expect to be paid fees.

I don't think Scott Peterson has money to pay and develope a real defense for the civil trial. On the other hand I doubt Shanon Rocha is going to spend big dollars to mount a case against Scott. I think Sharon and her attorney will just try to get their verdict on the coat tails of the criminal verdict. I would guess Sharon et al never expected the legal decision that this case would ever come to a jury trial.

Sharon stands to gain no monetary benefit. Even if she won a large monetary award, she would likely never collect a dime. If Scott wanted to profit from telling his story he could tell it to his family and they write a book or sell rights to their story.

[caphill]

Originally posted by bookie
I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to put that woman on the witness stand. She's be impeached in record time. She's a full blown quack. [/*]


LOL. Guess it doesn't matter what evidence or witnesses the defense can use. The tabloid witness for the plaintiff will carry the day with her confession fron death row.

I bet the Enquirer will sell lots of copies and promote this woman's book before the trial. Surely Sharon Roch el al would never consider allowing that kind of garbage on the stand.

[bookie]

Originally posted by caphill



LOL. Guess it doesn't matter what evidence or witnesses the defense can use. The tabloid witness for the plaintiff will carry the day with her confession fron death row.

I bet the Enquirer will sell lots of copies and promote this woman's book before the trial. Surely Sharon Roch el al would never consider allowing that kind of garbage on the stand. [/*]


You notice she didn't call Sharon's attorney and offer to testify? That's because Adam Stewart has her number. He said she is tabloid material. How would it look if he put her on the stand after that comment.


"The marketplace for her book seems to be the tabloids," said Adam Stewart, attorney for Sharon Rocha, Laci Peterson's mother.

http://www.modbee.com/local/story/172377-p2.html

[Stuy]

Originally posted by caphill



I don't believe if the two witnesses from the criminal trial were under subpoena as material witnesses that would get or expect to be paid fees.
[/*]

Do you think if Scott Peterson's lawyer subpoenaed Cyril Wecht or Henry Lee that they wouldn't expect to be paid? If you do then you better tyink again.

If either side calls in expert witnesses then that side will have to a pay what that expert witness charges and I can tell you it's not cheap.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Land Shark®
Peterson was arrested on April 18, 2003 in La Jolla, California in the parking lot of a golf course, where he claimed to be meeting his father and brother for a game of golf. At the time of his arrest, Peterson was carrying $15,000 in cash, had four cell phones, multiple credit cards belonging to various family members, a vast array of camping equipment, including knives, implements for warming food, tents, tarps, a dozen pairs of shoes, several changes of clothes, a gun, a map to Frey's workplace that had been printed that same day, a shovel, rope, 24 blister packs of sleeping pills, Viagra, and his brother's driver's license.

Scott Peterson ~ Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/scott-peterson) [/*]
Is it your position that all that will be allowed in as evidence in the civil trial?

[caphill]

Originally posted by Stuy


Do you think if Scott Peterson's lawyer subpoenaed Cyril Wecht or Henry Lee that they wouldn't expect to be paid? If you do then you better tyink again.

If either side calls in expert witnesses then that side will have to a pay what that expert witness charges and I can tell you it's not cheap. [/*]


I think you should back and read my original post. Why challenge me for a discussion that is not relevant to what I posted.

For your info Dr. Peterson was the pathologist that performed the autopsy and Dr Galloway hired by the State to examine some bones of the baby. Their reasons on the stand was to testify to the info in their reports.

They can be subpoenaed to testify again to the contents in their report. I would think ignoring a subpoena for court as a witness could lead to a bench warrant. That how it works in my part of the country.

[Stuy]

Originally posted by caphill

For your info Dr. Peterson was the pathologist that performed the autopsy and Dr Galloway hired by the State to examine some bones of the baby. Their reasons on the stand was to testify to the info in their reports.

They can be subpoenaed to testify again to the contents in their report. I would think ignoring a subpoena for court as a witness could lead to a bench warrant. That how it works in my part of the country. [/*]

If Dr. Peterson and Dr. Galloway are subpoenaed to testify then of course they would have to but the party that does that is reasonable for paying them their expert witness fees.

[bookie]

Originally posted by Stuy


If Dr. Peterson and Dr. Galloway are subpoenaed to testify then of course they would have to but the party that does that is reasonable for paying them their expert witness fees. [/*]


Dr Peterson isn't an expert witness though. He is the medical examiner who actually performed the autopsies. The judge has ruled the criminal conviction won't stand on it's own and that the Rochas have to prove Scott killed Laci. If Dr peterson is called it will be as a material witness, not expert.

[Stuy]

Originally posted by bookie



Dr Peterson isn't an expert witness though. He is the medical examiner who actually performed the autopsies. The judge has ruled the criminal conviction won't stand on it's own and that the Rochas have to prove Scott killed Laci. If Dr peterson is called it will be as a material witness, not expert. [/*]

You need to read Dr. Brian Peterson's testimony where he said he has testified at numerous trials as an expert witness.

Whoever the Rocha's lawyer or Peterson's lawyer call to testify they are responisble for paying them.

[bookie]

Originally posted by Stuy


You need to read Dr. Brian Peterson's testimony where he said he has testified at numerous trials as an expert witness.

Whoever the Rocha's lawyer or Peterson's lawyer call to testify they are responisble for paying them. [/*]


He may have testified in other cases as an expert witness but in this case he isn't an expert witness. Cyril Wecht, Henry Lee, Michael Baden and others have testified at trials as expert witnesses even though they had no connection to that particular case. They testified to their knowledge of their field.


EXPERT WITNESS - When knowledge of a technical subject matter might be helpful to a trier of fact, a person having special training or experience in that technical field, one who is called an expert witness, is permitted to state his or her opinion concerning those technical matters even though he or she was not present at the event. For example, an arson expert could testify about the probable cause of a suspicious fire.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e066.htm

[Stuy]

Originally posted by bookie



He may have testified in other cases as an expert witness but in this case he isn't an expert witness.
[/*]

Dr. Brian Peterson is an expert in the field of pathology. When he testifies he testifies as an expert in that field.

Who do you think would be responisble for paying Dr. Peterson if he were to testify at the civil trial?

Who do you think would be responisble for paying Dr. Galloway if he were to testify at the civil trial?

[bookie]

Originally posted by Stuy


Dr. Brian Peterson is an expert in the field of pathology. When he testifies he testifies as an expert in that field.

Who do you think would be responisble for paying Dr. Peterson if he were to testify at the civil trial?

Who do you think would be responisble for paying Dr. Galloway if he were to testify at the civil trial? [/*]


When he testifies in cases that he performed the autopsy for he is testifying as a material witness, not an expert witness.

Since he performed the actual autopsies I don't think he'd deserve an expert witness fee in this trial no matter which side calls him.

[caphill]

Originally posted by bookie



When he testifies in cases that he performed the autopsy for he is testifying as a material witness, not an expert witness.

Since he performed the actual autopsies I don't think he'd deserve an expert witness fee in this trial no matter which side calls him. [/*]


Do you ever feel like you beating your head against a brick wall in answering such questions.

I stopped responding when I realized there was no comprehension of what I had posted and no comprehensive of anything else I said.

[bookie]

Originally posted by caphill



Do you ever feel like you beating your head against a brick wall in answering such questions.

I stopped responding when I realized there was no comprehension of what I had posted and no comprehensive of anything else I said. [/*]


It's a wonder I don't have the Dell logo indented in my forehead. :tongue:

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by alter ego

Is it your position that all that will be allowed in as evidence in the civil trial?

No no no. :)

I was responding to mcannie1965's post. This is evidence I think should be entered into evidence at the civil trial.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Land Shark®


No no no. :)

I was responding to mcannie1965's post. This is evidence I think should be entered into evidence at the civil trial. [/*]
Fair enough....but what element of murder does it prove :shrug:

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by alter ego

Fair enough....but what element of murder does it prove :shrug:

Consciousness of guilt.

[bookie]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Check your PM box [/*]


Checked and answered.

[bookie]

Originally posted by insighter


Bookie, just where are you getting your info that Dr. Brian Peterson is testifying as a "material witness" and not an expert witness?

Also, please explain in your own words what a "material witness" is as opposed to what an expert witness. TIA [/*]


From following cases for years. A material witness is someone who can testify to facts involved in the case at hand. An expert witness is someone who can testify to their field of experience. If you don't believe me call a criminal defense attorney, district attorneys officew or even your local court clerk and ask them.

[bookie]

Originally posted by insighter


Well then, Dr. Brian Peterson would testify as an expert witness and not as a "material witness". Go figure! [/*]


No he wouldn't. He conduted the autopsies. He was testifying to actual facts related to the case.



JUDGE: All right. Then the Court will accept Doctor Peterson as a forensic pathologist qualified to give an opinion as to the cause of death. Go ahead.


Notice Judge Delucchi didn't accept him as an expert witness. Then notice what he said when talking about Devore and Galloway. They were acceptable AS EXPERT WITNESSES.

JUDGE: Then, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, based on the qualifications of Doctor Devore, the Court will accept Doctor Devore as an expert in maternal-fetal medicine, qualified to give an opinion therein. Go ahead.


JUDGE: Any questions, Mr. Geragos as to her expertise?

GERAGOS: No. Once I heard Alameda County I knew you will qualify her. Yes, I will accept Doctor Galloway as an expert in forensic anthropology, and competent to give an opinion.

JUDGE: Go ahead.

Brian Peterson testified as the coroner who performed the autopsies, not as an expert witness.

[bookie]

Originally posted by insighter


MEMO TO BOOKIE:

Dr. Brian Peterson, Forensic Pathologist is an expert witness and not a "material witness."

Please, just trust me when I tell you this.

HTH [/*]


Since you are wrong I can't trust you. He did NOT testify in this trial as an expert witness.

[bookie]

Originally posted by insighter


Then, what did he testify in this trial as? TIA [/*]


OMG are you serious? He testified as THE person who conducted the autopsies. The term material witness may not be the right one but "expert witness" isn't right either. That's why Judge Delucchi didn't accept him as an expert witness.


JUDGE: All right. Then the Court will accept Doctor Peterson as a forensic pathologist qualified to give an opinion as to the cause of death. Go ahead.

[bookie]

Originally posted by insighter


Now you get it bookie! "Material Witness" is not the right term.

BTW--Dr. Brian Peterson, Forensic Pathologist, is an expert witness in this case.

HTH [/*]


No he wasn't. But I'll let you pretend he was.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965
Was the substance on Conner's ear "electrical tape," which may have been put on the body to secure and wrap Conner. Whatever the substance was, it couldn't have adhered under water. It is not likely it's "kelp."

It caused the ear to fold over, but the fold couldn't have been due to inappropriate cartilage in his ears, as Dr. Peterson testified he had the "appropriate amount of cartilage.

Testimony Re: suibstance on Conner's ear:

Q. Okay. Now, also on the first picture which we marked -- let me go ahead -- let me make this EE I've marked and FF. Both of those have what appear to be a black substance that's over the left ear that looks like a piece of, to the untrained eye, I suppose, a piece of electrical tape or something, doesn't it?


A. It wasn't tape. I think it was kelp. There's plenty of vegetable material associated with the body, and I believe that was just more vegetable.
Q. You see where the ear is folded over as well? Once the -- whatever that substance was, once it's removed, the ear appears to be folded over.
A. It's the same between the -- well, this is FF.
Q. And then I'll mark this as GG.
A. So the ear hasn't changed position between those two pictures.
Q. That's correct. That's what I'm asking you. It appears that, once whatever that was is removed, that there is a discoloration on the baby's body as well right where it was?
A. Sure.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Looks like almost an adhesive substance that's been left there; is that correct?
A. I wouldn't go quite that far. There's certainly a discoloration there, though.
Q. Okay. And the discoloration goes across the side of the head. Now, it appears -- and this is what I was asking you before. It appears that there is, in these pictures, FF, EE and GG, that it was on a white sheet, towel, whatever you want to refer to it; is that correct?
A. That's correct



The material over the ear was noticed by the officers who surveyed the crime scene on April 13th:

Mark Geragos: Okay. You had noticed when you rolled the baby on that there was an item on the ear; isn't that correct? That you saw in the picture?
Chris Martinez: There is something there, yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And that's the way that you found the baby, correct?
Chris Martinez: Yes.

MHO [/*]

I wasn't aware that electrical tape left a purple stain.

jmo

[Lexus]

Originally posted by bookie



No he wasn't. But I'll let you pretend he was. [/*]

I believe as a forensiz pathologist, he is automatically an expert. jmo

[Stuy]

Originally posted by insighter

BTW--Dr. Brian Peterson, Forensic Pathologist, is an expert witness in this case.

HTH [/*]

The judge asked Dr. Brian Peterson if he had ever qualified in a court of law as an expert witness in forensic pathology. Dr. Peterson said he qualified as an expert in 100 to 200 court cases.

Dr Peterson can add one more where he testified as an expert witness when he testified at the Scott Peterson trial.

[Lexus]

Brian Peterson



Witness for the People: Guilt Phase

September 15 & 16, 2004



Direct Examination by David Harris

CLERK: Be seated. State and spell your name for the record.

PETERSON: My name is Brian Peterson. *-r-i-a-n P-e-t-e-r-s-o-n.

HARRIS: We are referring to you as doctor. Can you tell us what your profession is?

PETERSON: I'm a forensic pathologist employed by a company called Forensic Medical Group in Fairfield.

HARRIS: And what is a pathologist?

PETERSON: Well, pathology is a study disease. Pathology is a subspecialty of medicine. And we study disease of various types.

HARRIS: So to go back through this, we're calling you a doctor. Does that mean that you have a medical degree?

PETERSON: I do.

HARRIS: Can you tell the jury what your background and education is?

PETERSON: Following three years of undergraduate education, I entered medical school at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. I attended there from 1976 until my graduation with an M.D. in 1980. I spent the next one year doing a flexible or rotating internship at the Medical College of Ohio in Toledo Ohio. That was different specialties, actually taking care of patients for a year. I spent the next two years after that serving as a General Medical Officer with the Marines. I was in the Navy. The Marines don't have their own doctors, so I did that for two years. I then entered a training program in anatomic and clinical pathology at the Naval Hospital in San Diego starting in 1983. That was a four-year program. Anatomic pathology is directed towards performance of autopsies. Also directed towards looking at tissue removed in the operating room, for example, deciding if it's cancer or not. Clinical pathology is directed towards running the clinical lab, analyzing lab specimens, blood, urines, et cetera. That was a four year program. After that I went to a place called the Armed Forces Institute of pathology in Washington D.C. That was for my fellowship in forensic pathology. And that's basically, and additional training in autopsy pathology, now directed towards the medical-legal setting, overlooking a cause of death, manner of death. During and after that training, I took two separate examinations, offered by the American Board of Pathology. That's a group that certifies us. The first was in combined Anatomic and Clinical Pathology. I passed that exam. The second was in forensic pathology. I passed that exam. And back in 2001 I went through a voluntary recertification and passed that. So according to the board, I'm good for ten more years. After all that training, I returned to the Naval Hospital in San Diego and practiced there for about five more years doing all those things. And then left the service and joined my present practice about twelve years ago.

HARRIS: Now, you have used the term forensic pathology. Is that different than anatomic?

JUDGE: Can I interrupt? Are you done with his qualifications? Going to ask him some more before we get into the substance of his testimony? Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed in your career, approximately?

PETERSON: About 5,500, your Honor.

JUDGE: Have you qualified in a court of law as an expert in forensic pathology?

PETERSON: I have, between a hundred and two hundred.

JUDGE: Can you tell us some of the courts that you qualified in?

PETERSON: Most of the courts in the Bay Area. That includes Solano, Yolo, Marin, a number down in San Diego. Recently a court martial. Lot of different courts.

JUDGE: In those, in those cases where you qualified as a pathologist, were you called upon to give an opinion as to the cause of death?

PETERSON: Yes, your Honor.

JUDGE: Okay. And how many times have you done that in all those cases?

PETERSON: That's all those cases, your Honor.

JUDGE: And do you belong to any boards or any societies that are connected with the field of Forensic Pathology?

PETERSON: I'm a member of the National Association of Medical Examiners. I'm a fellow in the American Academy Forensic Sciences.

JUDGE: Mr. Geragos, do you have any questions about Doctor Peterson?

GERAGOS: Not of Doctor Peterson, no.

JUDGE: All right. Then the Court will accept Doctor Peterson as a forensic pathologist qualified to give an opinion as to the cause of death. Go ahead.


Well Judge Delucchi accept him as a forensic pathologist qualified to give an opinion.


Mark Geragos did not object to it at all.

[bookie]

Originally posted by Lexus
Brian Peterson



Witness for the People: Guilt Phase

September 15 & 16, 2004



Direct Examination by David Harris

CLERK: Be seated. State and spell your name for the record.

PETERSON: My name is Brian Peterson. *-r-i-a-n P-e-t-e-r-s-o-n.

HARRIS: We are referring to you as doctor. Can you tell us what your profession is?

PETERSON: I'm a forensic pathologist employed by a company called Forensic Medical Group in Fairfield.

HARRIS: And what is a pathologist?

PETERSON: Well, pathology is a study disease. Pathology is a subspecialty of medicine. And we study disease of various types.

HARRIS: So to go back through this, we're calling you a doctor. Does that mean that you have a medical degree?

PETERSON: I do.

HARRIS: Can you tell the jury what your background and education is?

PETERSON: Following three years of undergraduate education, I entered medical school at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. I attended there from 1976 until my graduation with an M.D. in 1980. I spent the next one year doing a flexible or rotating internship at the Medical College of Ohio in Toledo Ohio. That was different specialties, actually taking care of patients for a year. I spent the next two years after that serving as a General Medical Officer with the Marines. I was in the Navy. The Marines don't have their own doctors, so I did that for two years. I then entered a training program in anatomic and clinical pathology at the Naval Hospital in San Diego starting in 1983. That was a four-year program. Anatomic pathology is directed towards performance of autopsies. Also directed towards looking at tissue removed in the operating room, for example, deciding if it's cancer or not. Clinical pathology is directed towards running the clinical lab, analyzing lab specimens, blood, urines, et cetera. That was a four year program. After that I went to a place called the Armed Forces Institute of pathology in Washington D.C. That was for my fellowship in forensic pathology. And that's basically, and additional training in autopsy pathology, now directed towards the medical-legal setting, overlooking a cause of death, manner of death. During and after that training, I took two separate examinations, offered by the American Board of Pathology. That's a group that certifies us. The first was in combined Anatomic and Clinical Pathology. I passed that exam. The second was in forensic pathology. I passed that exam. And back in 2001 I went through a voluntary recertification and passed that. So according to the board, I'm good for ten more years. After all that training, I returned to the Naval Hospital in San Diego and practiced there for about five more years doing all those things. And then left the service and joined my present practice about twelve years ago.

HARRIS: Now, you have used the term forensic pathology. Is that different than anatomic?

JUDGE: Can I interrupt? Are you done with his qualifications? Going to ask him some more before we get into the substance of his testimony? Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed in your career, approximately?

PETERSON: About 5,500, your Honor.

JUDGE: Have you qualified in a court of law as an expert in forensic pathology?

PETERSON: I have, between a hundred and two hundred.

JUDGE: Can you tell us some of the courts that you qualified in?

PETERSON: Most of the courts in the Bay Area. That includes Solano, Yolo, Marin, a number down in San Diego. Recently a court martial. Lot of different courts.

JUDGE: In those, in those cases where you qualified as a pathologist, were you called upon to give an opinion as to the cause of death?

PETERSON: Yes, your Honor.

JUDGE: Okay. And how many times have you done that in all those cases?

PETERSON: That's all those cases, your Honor.

JUDGE: And do you belong to any boards or any societies that are connected with the field of Forensic Pathology?

PETERSON: I'm a member of the National Association of Medical Examiners. I'm a fellow in the American Academy Forensic Sciences.

JUDGE: Mr. Geragos, do you have any questions about Doctor Peterson?

GERAGOS: Not of Doctor Peterson, no.

JUDGE: All right. Then the Court will accept Doctor Peterson as a forensic pathologist qualified to give an opinion as to the cause of death. Go ahead.


Well Judge Delucchi accept him as a forensic pathologist qualified to give an opinion.


Mark Geragos did not object to it at all. [/*]


Qualified to give an opinion because he conduted the actual autopsies of the victims in the case. Now go read what Judge Delucchi said when he accepted Devore. He accepted him "as an expert witness". He was also on his way to accepting Galloway as "an expert witness" but Geragos beat him to the punch.

[Stuy]

Originally posted by Lexus

JUDGE: Have you qualified in a court of law as an expert in forensic pathology?

PETERSON: I have, between a hundred and two hundred.

JUDGE: In those, in those cases where you qualified as a pathologist, were you called upon to give an opinion as to the cause of death?

PETERSON: Yes, your Honor.

JUDGE: Okay. And how many times have you done that in all those cases?

PETERSON: That's all those cases, your Honor.

JUDGE: All right. Then the Court will accept Doctor Peterson as a forensic pathologist qualified to give an opinion as to the cause of death. Go ahead.
[/*]

The judge asked Dr. Brian Peterson when he testifed in court as an expert witness how many times was he called upon to give an opinion as to cause of death. Dr. Peterson responded by saying he gave his opinion in all of the cases.

So the judge accepted Dr. Peterson as a forensic patholgist qualified to give an opinion as to case of death.

Every time Dr. Peterson gave an opinion as to cause of death he was testifing as an expert witness. So when he gave an opinion in the Scott Peterson trial he testified as an expert witness.

[bookie]

Originally posted by insighter


Correct. ITA.

Dr. Brian Peterson, Forensic Pathologist, who performed the autopsies in this case is a qualified expert witness in this case. Case closed. Now, let us move on to another topic of your choice bookie. [/*]


You are hung up on the word expert. He is an expert in his field but he didn't testify as an expert witness. He testified as the coroner who conduted the autopsies. He wasn't qualified as an expert in this case. The proof is in the testimony that I posted earlier. The judge never used the word expert when accepting him as a witness.

You move on to what you want. It isn't going to change the fact that Dr Peterson didn't testify as an expert witness in this case. :lol:

[Stuy]

Originally posted by bookie



You are hung up on the word expert. He is an expert in his field but he didn't testify as an expert witness. He testified as the coroner who conduted the autopsies. He wasn't qualified as an expert in this case. The proof is in the testimony that I posted earlier. The judge never used the word expert when accepting him as a witness.

You move on to what you want. It isn't going to change the fact that Dr Peterson didn't testify as an expert witness in this case. :lol: [/*]

Every time Dr. Brian Peterson testifies in a court a law and gives his opinion he does so as an expert.

He has given his opinion on cause of death in between 100 and 200 cases. He said in those cases he testfied as an expert witness.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by bookie



You are hung up on the word expert. He is an expert in his field but he didn't testify as an expert witness. He testified as the coroner who conduted the autopsies. He wasn't qualified as an expert in this case. The proof is in the testimony that I posted earlier. The judge never used the word expert when accepting him as a witness.

You move on to what you want. It isn't going to change the fact that Dr Peterson didn't testify as an expert witness in this case. :lol: [/*]

Dr. Peterson is a qualified forensic pathologist. Dr. Baden is a qualified forensic pathologist. Dr. Wecht is a qualified pathologist.
Why would Dr. Peterson be less of an expert than they are?



PETERSON: I'm a forensic pathologist

[Stuy]

Originally posted by bookie



You are hung up on the word expert. He is an expert in his field but he didn't testify as an expert witness. He testified as the coroner who conduted the autopsies. He wasn't qualified as an expert in this case. The proof is in the testimony that I posted earlier. The judge never used the word expert when accepting him as a witness.

You move on to what you want. It isn't going to change the fact that Dr Peterson didn't testify as an expert witness in this case. :lol: [/*]

What do you think the judge said about Dr. Peterson testifing during the preliminary hearing?

I will tell you what he said. He said that Dr. Peterson qualifies to testify as an expert in pathology.

Dr. Peterson gave the same testimony in the preliminary hearing as he did at the court trial.

If he was considered an expert witness during his testimony at the preliminary heaing then he would have been considered an expert at the court trial when he gave the same testimony.

You just can't seem to get it.:shrug:

[Lexus]

Originally posted by Stuy


What do you think the judge said about Dr. Peterson testifing during the preliminary hearing?

I will tell you what he said. He said that Dr. Peterson qualifies to testify as an expert in pathology.

Dr. Peterson gave the same testimony in the preliminary hearing as he did at the court trial.

If he was considered an expert witness during his testimony at the preliminary heaing then he would have been considered an expert at the court trial when he gave the same testimony.

You just can't seem to get it.:shrug: [/*]

from the preliminary:

19 Q. Have you qualified as an expert in the area of
20 forensic pathology in courts of this State before?
21 A. Yes, I have.
22 Q. Can you give the Court an estimate, if you can?
23 A. I'd estimate between 100 and 200 times

[bookie]

Originally posted by Stuy


What do you think the judge said about Dr. Peterson testifing during the preliminary hearing?

I will tell you what he said. He said that Dr. Peterson qualifies to testify as an expert in pathology.

Dr. Peterson gave the same testimony in the preliminary hearing as he did at the court trial.

If he was considered an expert witness during his testimony at the preliminary heaing then he would have been considered an expert at the court trial when he gave the same testimony.

You just can't seem to get it.:shrug: [/*]


JUDGE: All right. Then the Court will accept Doctor Peterson as a forensic pathologist qualified to give an opinion as to the cause of death. Go ahead.


There is what the judge said. Would you be so kind as to point out where the judge accepted Peterson as an expert witness? Heck....point out where he said the word expert at all in accepting Peterson? I'll save you some time. He didn't. He accpeted him as a forensic pathologist qualified to give his opinion. The reason he accepted his qualified opinion is because he actually conducted the autopsies.

I'll be back when y'all figure out what an expert witness really is.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by bookie



JUDGE: All right. Then the Court will accept Doctor Peterson as a forensic pathologist qualified to give an opinion as to the cause of death. Go ahead.


There is what the judge said. Would you be so kind as to point out where the judge accepted Peterson as an expert witness? Heck....point out where he said the word expert at all in accepting Peterson? I'll save you some time. He didn't. He accpeted him as a forensic pathologist qualified to give his opinion. The reason he accepted his qualified opinion is because he actually conducted the autopsies.

I'll be back when y'all figure out what an expert witness really is. [/*]

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/transcripts/index.htm

[Stuy]

Originally posted by bookie

I'll be back when y'all figure out what an expert witness really is. [/*]

This was taken from the preliminary hearing just before Dr. Brian Peterson was to testify.

JUDGE: Before you go into that, do you wish to voir dire his qualifications?

GERAGOS: I do not, Your Honor. Thank you.

JUDGE: He'll be allowed to testify as an expert in pathology, then.

Your the one who can't figure out what an expert is.

Since Dr. Peterson testified as an expert during the preliminary hearing don't you think he testified as an expert to the same thing during the court trial.

[Lexus]

A material witness (in US law) is a person with information alleged to be material concerning a criminal proceeding. The authority to detain material witnesses dates to the First Judiciary Act of 1789, but the Bail Reform Act of 1984 most recently amended the text of the statute, and it is now codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3144. The most recent version allows material witnesses to be held to ensure the giving of their testimony in criminal proceedings or to a grand jury. Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. has used the material witness statute to detain suspects without charge for indefinite periods of time, often under the rubric of securing grand-jury testimony. This use of the statute is controversial and is currently under judicial review.

It doesn't refer to a material witness in a civil case - just criminal and Grand Jury.

[CSloper]

Originally posted by bookie



JUDGE: All right. Then the Court will accept Doctor Peterson as a forensic pathologist qualified to give an opinion as to the cause of death. Go ahead.


[/*]

Go ahead, Dr. Peterson. As a qualified forensic pathologist, give us your opinion as to the cause of death. Go ahead.

Expert? Hardly.

[Stuy]

Originally posted by Stuy

JUDGE: Before you go into that, do you wish to voir dire his qualifications?

GERAGOS: I do not, Your Honor. Thank you.

JUDGE: He'll be allowed to testify as an expert in pathology, then.
[/*]

Dr. Brian Peterson testified as an expert at Scott Peterson's preliminary hearing.

[Stuy]

Originally posted by mcannie1965

I think Wecht, Lee, Henry Lee, and Brian Peterson should testify at the Civil trial.
[/*]

But can Scott Peterson afford to pay for expert witnessess like Dr. Cyril Wecht, Dr. Henry Lee and Dr. Brian Peterson to testify at his civil trial?

I bet he can't afford to pay one of those experts talk about all three.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Stuy


But can Scott Peterson afford to pay for expert witnessess like Dr. Cyril Wecht, Dr. Henry Lee and Dr. Brian Peterson to testify at his civil trial?

I bet he can't afford to pay one of those experts talk about all three. [/*]


I agree with that. I don't believe either side can afford to pay out lots of money to retry the criminial case in this civil case.

Dr. Peterson or any other pathologist can address the conditions of the bodies after death but cannot address the cause and manner of death in this case.

Dr. Peterson has already stated cause of death as unknown.

[Stuy]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Brian Peterson's "ultimate conclusion, "is he couldn't rule out live birth. He agreed that he could not rule out live birth. The autopsy findings report is his "ultimate concluse" as to the age of Conner Peterson. All the shading and spin won't change that fact. It is documented, and signed by Brian Peterson.

A new jury might laugh Peterson out of the room is he tries to sell the jury that Conner died in Laci's womb. A baby dies in the mother's womb when she dies, and does not age in a womb of a mother who is deceased.

Conner's gestational age testifies to his daddy's innocence, and Laci was 71/2 months pregnant when she went missing; thus she had to live until late January or early February...and Conner was full term.

The jury in the Peterson trial was blinded by hate for Scott, and couldn't see the exonerating evidence, and that there was not a shred of evidence to point to guilt.



MHO [/*]

Dr. Gregory DeVore is an expert at determining how old Conner was and he testified that Conner died on December 23. Dr. DeVore is an expert in that field while Dr. Peterson is not.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by CSloper


Go ahead, Dr. Peterson. As a qualified forensic pathologist, give us your opinion as to the cause of death. Go ahead.

Expert? Hardly. [/*]

I am sorry that the jury chose to believe that he was an expert. The Judges accepted it; the defense accepted it, yet you do not??? Go figure.

[Stuy]

Originally posted by mcannie1965




Conner could not have died on December 23: The autopsy findings report lists his estimated gestational age at 9 months--full term.

If Laci had died 23 December, Conner would have died with her. This is a fact. Babies do not grow or age in a dead mother's womb, thus Laci had to live until Conner was 9 months gestataional age.

The prosecution tried to discredit their own forensic "expert," Brian Peterson, who estimated Conner Peterson's age by having Devore testify. If that jury wasn't sleeping at the switch, they would have laughed the prosecution out of the room!


The prosecution can never ever get around the estimated 9 months gestational age listed on a document: the autopsy findings report, signed by Brian Peterson. Conner was full term.
"

mho [/*]

Dr. Peterson doesn't have any expertize in determining the age of Conner while Dr. Vore does. Dr. Peterson gave an estimate which is more or less a guess.

Dr. Peterson did state that he could not rule out a live birth but it was his expert opinion that Conner wasn't born alive. Dr. Peterson also said that Conner was protected by his mother up until a day or so beflroe he washed ashore. He also said the plastic around Conner's neck was debri was the ocean.

Dr. Cyril Wecht also said on TV before he was hired by the defense that the condition of Conner's body told him that he had been proteced by his mother. Wecht also believed the plastic was debri from the ocean.

[Lexus]

I muys t point out at this time that "gestational" age and "lunar" age are not the same

http://www.astm.org/JOURNALS/FORENSIC/PAGES/3077.htm

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&threadid=335581

They mean two different things completely. so a 9 month gestational age is NOT the same thing as a nine month full term age.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Stuy


Dr. Gregory DeVore is an expert at determining how old Conner was and he testified that Conner died on December 23. Dr. DeVore is an expert in that field while Dr. Peterson is not. [/*]


You show me an expert who can say that fetus died between 8:30pm and 12:00am on the 23rd of Dec and I will show you a quack.

He also gave a another date of Dec 25th. I guess Scott had Laci hidden away and killed after she was reported missing.

[caphill]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


I did read the testimony:

GERAGOS: Okay. Now, you, your ultimate conclusion was you could not determine if the baby was born alive, correct?

PETERSON: That's correct.

GERAGOS: And I've asked you, obviously, because we've gone over this before, you could not rule out that he was born alive; isn't that correct?

PETERSON: That's correct.

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

Mcannie note: If the baby expelled from Laci's woman, Laci had to have been in her 9th month of pregnancy. So if the baby expelled this means Laci lived until late January or February. She was 71/2 months when she went missing...and if she had been killed 24 December, Conner would not have been an estimated 9 months gestational age. He would have been a 71/2 month gestational age. He could not have grown to 9 months in a dead mother's womb. He would die when his mama died. Thus, Laci died in her 9th month of pregnancy. The baby was either cut from the uterus...or it expelled from her uterus in late January or early February.


mho [/*]


If the baby had been born alive, which Dr. Peterson admits was possible, then what was the cause of death?

Dr. Peterson could not make an opinion of cause of death for Laci or the baby.

[Katprint]

Originally posted by bookie
JUDGE: All right. Then the Court will accept Doctor Peterson as a forensic pathologist qualified to give an opinion as to the cause of death. Go ahead.


There is what the judge said. Would you be so kind as to point out where the judge accepted Peterson as an expert witness? Heck....point out where he said the word expert at all in accepting Peterson? I'll save you some time. He didn't. He accpeted him as a forensic pathologist qualified to give his opinion. The reason he accepted his qualified opinion is because he actually conducted the autopsies.

I'll be back when y'all figure out what an expert witness really is.
Even though the judge did not use the word "expert," the judge's statement that Dr. Peterson was "a forensic pathologist qualified to give an opinion" reflects Dr. Peterson's status as an expert.

The admissibility of opinions of non-expert witnesses is limited by Evidence Code 800. Such opinions must be "rationally based on the perception of the witness; and helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony." A classic example of this is whether the person whom you saw walking unsteadily, smelled alcohol on his breath and heard him slur his speech (3 perceptions) was in fact intoxicated (1 opinion). This is the sort of common knowledge opinion that a percipient witness would be qualified to testify to.

Evidence Code 801 et. seq. permits expert witnesses, on the other hand, to testify about any "subject that is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of fact; and based on matter (including his special knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education) perceived by or personally known to the witness." Since forensic pathology is beyond the common experience of the average person, all qualified forensic pathology opinions are necessarily expert opinions. And, anybody offering an expert opinion is necessarily an expert witness.

Admittedly this can be complicated. The issue of whether medical doctors who treated personal injury victims were "experts" who had to be paid sizable expert witness fees or whether they were merely percipient witnesses who could be subpoenaed for $35 and asked about the injuries they had observed, was litigated all the way up to the California Supreme Court. Currently, California law provides that any witness whose testimony will be based on that witness' professional expertise has a right to be paid expert witness fees.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

[caphill]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


He couldn't determine what Laci died of because her body was so decomposed there was little left to help determine cause of death. If Conner was expelled from the body via "coffin birth," then he died because Laci died...but she could not have died until late January or early February when Conner would be in his estimated 9 month gestational age.

mho [/*]

I am not disagreeing with size, condition, age of baby. I am addressing the cause of death of either Laci or baby.

Laci's cause can not be determined because of the condition of the body. Baby's cause of death could be the death of his mother. If he was born alive there could be other reasons for his death.

The long cut running down the front of little body could be the cause of death and on and on and on.

Dr. Peterson listed cause of death Laci and Connor as unknown.

If he was certain Connor died while in the uterus he would have so stated.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by caphill


I am not disagreeing with size, condition, age of baby. I am addressing the cause of death of either Laci or baby.

Laci's cause can not be determined because of the condition of the body. Baby's cause of death could be the death of his mother. If he was born alive there could be other reasons for his death.

The long cut running down the front of little body could be the cause of death and on and on and on.

Dr. Peterson listed cause of death Laci and Connor as unknown.

If he was certain Connor died while in the uterus he would have so stated. [/*]

Conner was macerated

mac·er·ate (ms-rt)
v.
1. To make soft by soaking or steeping in a liquid.
2. To separate into constituents by soaking.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/macerated

Stillborn babies are macerated.

http://www.pepcourse.co.za/Saving%20Mothers%20Babies/Unit48_p2.html

Stillborn babies die in the womb. They are macerated. Conner was macersted. Conner could very well have died in the womb - in fact that is the most logical explanation given the state of his body and the type of injuries he had. The cut across his chest/abdomen did not occur when he was alive. There was no bleeding. Conner still had meconium in his anus. Meconium is expelled normally in the first 24 hours of life. It can be expelled in utero, but that causes a whole different set of problems. Given there was meconium in the anus, the body was macerated and he weight 2.5 lbs all point to his death in uetero.

And Dr. Peterson states clearly that he believes Conner was protected in the uterus until shortly before he was tossed onto the marshy mudflat.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Lexus


Conner was macerated

mac·er·ate (ms-rt)
v.
1. To make soft by soaking or steeping in a liquid.
2. To separate into constituents by soaking.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/macerated

Stillborn babies are macerated.

http://www.pepcourse.co.za/Saving%20Mothers%20Babies/Unit48_p2.html

Stillborn babies die in the womb. They are macerated. Conner was macersted. Conner could very well have died in the womb - in fact that is the most logical explanation given the state of his body and the type of injuries he had. The cut across his chest/abdomen did not occur when he was alive. There was no bleeding. Conner still had meconium in his anus. Meconium is expelled normally in the first 24 hours of life. It can be expelled in utero, but that causes a whole different set of problems. Given there was meconium in the anus, the body was macerated and he weight 2.5 lbs all point to his death in uetero.

And Dr. Peterson states clearly that he believes Conner was protected in the uterus until shortly before he was tossed onto the marshy mudflat. [/*]


Go back and read Dr. P's testimony without cherry picking it. Dr.P discussed Conner being macerated and his condition as being consistance with being in a marine enviroment for 2 days. Being in a marine enviroment could cause maceration as well as soaking in fluid in the uterus.

Speaking of bleeding, how much blood was found in Conner's body that had been protected in the iron clad uterus with a hole big enough for him to slip out?

[caphill]

Originally posted by AngelWings



Also in the link you provided, Brian Peterson testified UNDER OATH that before Laci was found, when it was just Conner, he did the autopsy report with next to nothing to go on. When Laci was found and it was learned she was Conner's mother, he then had much more information to determine the facts about Conner. I know you've said he lied (haha) to frame Scott, but that's balony. [/*]


He also admitted he was not very good at math. He proved that to not think it odd that 33cc CTR fetus would fit into a 22cc uterus.

[bookie]

Originally posted by caphill



You show me an expert who can say that fetus died between 8:30pm and 12:00am on the 23rd of Dec and I will show you a quack.

He also gave a another date of Dec 25th. I guess Scott had Laci hidden away and killed after she was reported missing. [/*]


Don't forget Dr Devore based his conclusions on, in part, ultrasounds of bones, and not the bones themselves. Dr Galloway measured the actual bones themselves and came up with measurements of more than 34 weeks on each individual measurement. None of her 14 measurements were less than 34 weeks.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Whatever Mcannie. I can understand the testimony, it's not complicated.

I will take weight over your ear cartilage theory anyday. Full term baby weighing 3.5 pounds? Harldy. Brian Peterson testified in several different ways that Conner died IN Laci's womb.

Provide the link for the testimony where they say Conners ear cartilage proves he was a full term baby please. [/*]

Can you tell me what this cartiledge in the ear merans? I do not remember any issue with that in the trial at all.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965



When a baby dies in the uterus that is the cause of death.

mho [/*]

Are you saying that the uterus causes the death? Not "lack of oxygen," I am aware that babies die from cords wrapped too tightly around their necks in the uterus but I have yet to hear of a uterus causing their death.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by bookie



Don't forget Dr Devore based his conclusions on, in part, ultrasounds of bones, and not the bones themselves. Dr Galloway measured the actual bones themselves and came up with measurements of more than 34 weeks on each individual measurement. None of her 14 measurements were less than 34 weeks. [/*]

Wasn't the chart she used of European births, not Americdan? So an adjustment had to be made.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by AngelWings


No Lexus, I can't tell you what the cartiledge in Conner's ear means because there is ZERO testimony about it. That means, it was never mentioned. :D [/*] Oh, O.K. I thought I was transported to the twighlight zone for a minute there.

[bookie]

Originally posted by AngelWings


No Lexus, I can't tell you what the cartiledge in Conner's ear means because there is ZERO testimony about it. That means, it was never mentioned. :D [/*]


Try again. This isn't the only mention of cartilage in the transcripts. It's mentioned repeatedly. I stopped counting at 20.


PETERSON: Sure. I described in my report that the ear contained an appropriate amount of cartilage; but, again, this is a macerated, soft baby, and that softening is going to produce those kinds of changes. So I would agree with you completely, the ear is not in a normal anatomic position, but then in a baby that's this liquefied, I think that's just fine.

http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/PetersonBrian-Trial.htm

[bookie]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Where-o-where in this testimony/link you provided does it state that the ear cartilaged proved Conner was full term? Quite possibly I blinked.:rolleyes: [/*]


You said cartilage in the ear wasn't discussed at all. It was. Spin away!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by AngelWings


No Lexus, I can't tell you what the cartiledge in Conner's ear means because there is ZERO testimony about it. That means, it was never mentioned. [/*]

[Lexus]

Originally posted by bookie



Try again. This isn't the only mention of cartilage in the transcripts. It's mentioned repeatedly. I stopped counting at 20.


PETERSON: Sure. I described in my report that the ear contained an appropriate amount of cartilage; but, again, this is a macerated, soft baby, and that softening is going to produce those kinds of changes. So I would agree with you completely, the ear is not in a normal anatomic position, but then in a baby that's this liquefied, I think that's just fine.

http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/PetersonBrian-Trial.htm [/*]

He does not say appropriate to what? a fetus or a live baby? The statement is meaningless. There was not enough cartiledge to keep the ear from being folded over as it was found. And AGAIN, the baby was MACERATED. Stillborns are macerated, full term babies are not.

THE EAR WAS NOT EVEN IN THE NORMAL ANATOMIC POSITION!!!!! OMG, the more information you produce the farther from your own theories you get. The ear was not located in the normal position - do you think that could be because of the non-fused head plates? The slipping plates that were collapsing? You didn't see the photos; the jury did. Just from the description that Peterson gave in testiomny, this was NOT a full term baby - this was a deformed head at best.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by bookie



Try again. This isn't the only mention of cartilage in the transcripts. It's mentioned repeatedly. I stopped counting at 20.


PETERSON: Sure. I described in my report that the ear contained an appropriate amount of cartilage; but, again, this is a macerated, soft baby, and that softening is going to produce those kinds of changes. So I would agree with you completely, the ear is not in a normal anatomic position, but then in a baby that's this liquefied, I think that's just fine.

http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/PetersonBrian-Trial.htm [/*]

From your link, I alsos found this:

PETERSON: It has. There is still a stain there, and I remember thinking Well, that's pretty neat because iodine can do that, and there's iodine in kelp, so that was my thinking.. It shows the ear is kind of flattened because that's, it's not necessarily well-formed cartilage in the ear at that point
Also the overriding of the skull plates. It's probably better to see it here, you can see how the forehead kind of collapses in, again because the brain has liquefied and those plates override.



[You also left out the questions that preceeded your quote.

GERAGOS: Okay. And did you note that in any of your observations, you know, we talked about the anatomical, whether, whether there were any anatomical abnormalities. Would that qualify as an anatomical abnormality?

PETERSON: The position of the ear?

GERAGOS: Yes, the position of ear. The fact that the ear, if I see that correctly, the ear is not flat as one normally would expect it. It's actually flattened over against the head; is it not?

PETERSON: Sure.


Changes the entire meaning of your original quote, doesn't it?

[bookie]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Bookie, this is so old. You are all posting that the ear cartilage means Conner was full term. I am posting that there is ZERO testimony stating so.

Call it a spin, call it what you want, the fact remains there is zero testimony stating that Conner's ear cartliage proves he was a full term baby. [/*]


I have never posted about Conner's age. Not once. You said ear cartilage wasn't in the testimony and you were wrong.

[Lexus]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AngelWings


It is clear, by the testimony at the links YOU provided, that Brian Peterson testified FIRST that when he did QUOTE]


incorrect post removed
.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


You have not posted testimony that proves me wrong. Brian Peterson testified he had the appropriate amount of cartilage in his ears, and I have posted his testimony.
[/*]

Is there a reason you consistently repost the SAME information (yet leave out the estimated weight of 3.5)? Not to mention that you keep posting that there was the appropriate amount of cartilege, but not saying what it is appropriate4 to.

Read the queswtions before the appropriate cartilege and you will see that the ear is not in the proper position for a full term baby.

[Lexus]

Here's Dr. Peterson's testimony.

http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/PetersonBrian-Trial.htm

IO suggest you read it IN TOTAL because he clearly states that his (expert) opinion is that Conner died in utero and that it was kelp on the ear. I will believe a forensic anthropologist's opinion before a non-expert any day.

Note: A full term baby does not usually die in utero. And you keep stating 9 months. 9 months gestational age is NOT the same thing as 9 months lunar (as you seem to think. If you had read the links I proviuded, you would know that.

[CSloper]

Originally posted by Lexus
Here's Dr. Peterson's testimony.

http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/PetersonBrian-Trial.htm

IO suggest you read it IN TOTAL because he clearly states that his (expert) opinion is that Conner died in utero and that it was kelp on the ear. I will believe a forensic anthropologist's opinion before a non-expert any day.

Note: A full term baby does not usually die in utero. And you keep stating 9 months. 9 months gestational age is NOT the same thing as 9 months lunar (as you seem to think. If you had read the links I proviuded, you would know that. [/*]
Dr. Peterson has been a witness for the prosecution for a long time. Does anyone have any links to the articles about the scandal on this?

Whatever was on that baby's ear wasn't kelp. It was this item that folded the ear over and made it "out of place" on the head. When was this item lost? I speculate it was after discovery that this was Conner Peterson's body.

9 lunar months would make the gestational age 36 weeks, give or take a couple of days. 40 weeks is full term. I, too, would take the word of a forensic anthropologist. I believe Galloway.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965
"Dr. Wecht told Dan Abrams the cuts found on Connor Peterson's body were consistent with the child having been removed from his mother's womb, Laci Peterson, via an incision, rather than expelled from the body due to decomposition of the uterus."




http://www.cyrilwecht.com/journal/archives/laci_peterson/ [/*]

I don't believe Dr. Wecht was under oath and Dr. Peterson specifically says they were POST-mortum. Read Dr. Peterson's testimony. Dr. Wecht has said a GREAT MANY things on television that do not stand up under oath. If the wound was a cut, it would not be jagged as it was for one thing. It was a TEAR, not a cut an d there was no evidence of any bleeding (which there would have been if Conner had been alive.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


I have never kept out the weight. I have addressed this in posts and provided links.

It is not a proper position for the ear because a substance adhered to his ear which caused it to fold over. BP testified he had the appropriate amount of cartilage. I have posted BP testimony about Conner having the appropriate amount of cartilage in his ear over and over and over and over again.

MHO [/*]

But he NEVER says Conner had the appropriate amount of cartilege for a full term baby - which is what you are claiming. You refuse to adknowledge the word ESTIMATED or GESTATIONAL which both change the meaning of the autopsy report from what you "believe" it to mean. You keep posting the autopsy information but you leave out the weight, and you also ignore the weight that is specifically stated in the preliminary which is about 2.55 lbs - certainly NOT a full term baby

[Lexus]

Here's some more testimony to vegetation with Conner
'
HARRIS: Now, with regards to the body and the towel, counsel was asking you about whether you added or subtracted. When you rolled this body on there, if the body's laying, looking at this photograph that's up there right now, VV, do you see leaves and debris and other items just laying out there in the field?

MARTINEZ: Yes.

HARRIS: So if the body is laying on something like that and you roll it up, does that become adhered to the body?

GERAGOS: Objection. Calls for speculation.

JUDGE: Well, what happened in this case would be important. Otherwise, I'll sustain the objection.

HARRIS: When you rolled the body over, did you notice if any leaves or anything like that was sticking to it?

MARTINEZ: I did.

HARRIS: Was there kind of vegetation and stuff sticking to the body?

MARTINEZ: There was.

HARRIS: And how you found it is how you transported it to the Coroner's Office?

MARTINEZ: That's correct.

HARRIS: And it's up to the pathologist to make any medical determinations?

MARTINEZ: That's correct.

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&threadid=335581

also

HARRIS: Where the body was at, did you notice if there was any debris around it?

LOOBY: There was debris there too.

HARRIS: So in the area where the body was at, there was debris. There was debris that was pushed up further past the body as well?

LOOBY: Yes.

HARRIS: In the time that you found the body out there at that particular location, do you recall that as being low tide?

LOOBY: Yes.

http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/Looby.htm

[Lexus]

Another interesting note about the substance around Conner's neck from the FIRST police officer on the scene:

GERAGOS: Did you notice when you saw the baby what appeared to be some either tape or twine around the baby's neck?

OP****: I noticed there was debris, a substance, a tape like substance or a,

GERAGOS: Twine?

OP****: Well, it could have been.

http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/Op****.htm

Even HE describes DEBRIS arorund Conner's neck. So it was not just Dr. Peterson who felt it was debris.

[caphill]

My reading comprehension is quite different from yours. The comments regarding the cut on the baby were made after seeing the baby and seeing the autopsy.

Earlier statement regarding loop around the baby head was before he had seen pic, autopsy or baby. Of course we all remember how excited he got when he did actually see the baby and the twine/tape. Remember the famous words "never in a million years" regarding smaller loop being able to slip over a larger head and then wrap around the chest and under arm before ending in a knot and a knotted bow tie.

I saw him on TV and heard things he said before seeing the baby and autopsy based on what he had heard from the media.

I saw him on TV and heard his comments after he saw the baby and saw the autopsy. He was singing a different tune after he saw the baby.

The link is just a compilation of Dr. W comments at various times.
Agree? or are my comprehension skills flawed.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Lexus
Here's some more testimony to vegetation with Conner


http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/Looby.htm [/*]


Wonder what happened to that towel and the vegatation and debris that was on the baby. What happened to the debris that folded the ear and stuck to Conner's head leaving a purple or black stain or bruise.

How could Dr Peterson give an opinion as to what it was when he couldn't remember seeing it, insists he doesn't remember taking it off the head, doesn't know what happened to it.

To the day the mystery of the missing towel, the missing substance taping ear down and the missing vegatation, has not be solved.

We were told the missing recorder tape from Dr. Peterson's hand held recorder has been recycled as cost saving act.

[Lexus]

You are correct that Lee and Wecht did not arrive until August of that year and at first, they were allowed to see (not touch) the bodies and review the tests. I Believe that was amended to allow them a little more access. However, they were not allowed to do any additional work on the bodies, other than test fluids that had already been removed. It's not like Wecht got a fresh body that he could cut into.

If Wecht said that the tear across Conner's shoulder/abdomen was a CUT, he's delusional. A tear looks nothing like a cut. Not to mention that cutting into the top of the uterus to remove a body would NOT leave a cut mark on the shoulder - the shoulder would be positioned at the bottom of the uterus as Conner was head down - as testified to by the Doctor's who had examined Laci.

There were NO CUT MARKS on Laci's uterus - just the abraded opening at the top of the uterus.

[Lexus]

I know. Was Wecht even on the payroll in May? Or was he playing "spin doctor."

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by mcannie1965
"Dr. Wecht told Dan Abrams the cuts found on Connor Peterson's body were consistent with the child having been removed from his mother's womb, Laci Peterson, via an incision, rather than expelled from the body due to decomposition of the uterus."



http://www.cyrilwecht.com/journal/archives/laci_peterson/ [/*]

And Garagos promised witnesses that showed Laci was abducted. Your point being...?

Wecht didn't testify. Why is that?

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965



GERAGOS: And if Conner had exited before he had gone into the water, and Laci was placed in the water, the decomposition would have been such that that incision would no longer be observable by you.

PETERSON: Well, if we assume the incision was up high, then that would be true.

GERAGOS: And if Conner had exited before he had gone into the water, and Laci was placed in the water, the decomposition would have been such that that incision would no longer be observable by you.

PETERSON: Well, if we assume the incision was up high, then that would be true.

The only up high incision would be at the fundus and that would be up by the 9th rib. I date you to extract a baby from teh top part of the fundus up around the ninth rib. Don't forget all the organs that are up in that area It can't be done. The only reason that Conner was able to escape through the fundus is that all the organs normally found there were gone. The fundus in a pregnant woman at that stage is ABOVE the belly button. You would have to cut into the chest and cut off the top of the fundus. Go ahead. Anatonically, it's impossible. Not to mention that you'd have to pull the baby out by the buttocks. Ever heard of breach birth?





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


and from your link to Wecht

Appearing on MSNBC, Dr. Wecht said the findings in the coroner's report on Connor Peterson, the unborn son of Laci and Scott Peterson, were extremely significant.

Dr. Wecht told Dan Abrams the cuts found on Connor Peterson's body were consistent with the child having been removed from his mother's womb, Laci Peterson, via an incision, rather than expelled from the body due to decomposition of the uterus.

Later, on MSNBC's 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann,' Dr. Wecht also said he believes, at this point, having not seen the autopsy report or pictures, the plastic tape found around the baby's neck will prove to be a pick-up or artifact.

See Coroner Finds Plastic 'Noose' Around Peterson Baby's Neck and 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for May 29

MHO [/*]May 30, 2003

That episode occurred in May of 2003/

August 8 Al Girolami issues an order allowing Scott Peterson's defense attorneys to conduct their own examination of the remains of Laci and Conner Peterson. The order spells out where, when and how that will be done, and it is signed by all parties: Girolami, David Harris for the prosecution, and Kirk McAllister for the defense. According to the agreed-upon order, the examination can take only one day and must be done at the Contra Costa coroner's office in Martinez during regular business hours, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on August 11, 2003. The order states that only fifteen persons can be present—eight from the defense team, four from the district attorney's office, two coroner's officials and a doctor chosen by the coroner's office. The agreement outlines limitations in the procedures and states that the defense team must pay for the exam and furnish its own equipment, but that it will not be charged for use of the coroner's facilities. Prosecutors file court documents asking for permission to survey prospective jurors on whether Scott Peterson can get a fair trial in Stanislaus County, hoping to counter an expected defense motion to move the trial to another county. The papers state that the district attorney's office has hired Ebbe Ebbesen to conduct the survey. According to the filing, Ebbesen plans to use written questionnaires distributed at the courthouse to people arriving for jury duty, comparing their responses about the Scott Peterson case to people in two other counties.


August 11 Henry Lee and Cyril Wecht spend 3 hours in the Contra Costa coroner's office. They photograph, videotape and take tissue samples. Prosecutors attend the procedure, but David Harris refuses to discuss what went on, citing the gag order. "It was as smooth and performed as well as could be under the circumstances," Mark Geragos says. After leaving the coroner's office, Lee, Wecht and a member of the defense team go to Scott and Laci Peterson's home, look around the yard and tour of the house. Matt Dalton explains the defense team's "satanic" theory to them in the presence of a writer and photographer for the Modesto Bee, an act Al Girolami later indicates may be in violation of the gag order. Defense attorneys file a court document arguing against the media petition to allow cameras at the preliminary hearing, saying television coverage would prohibit their client from receiving a fair trial. "There is a substantial probability of prejudice that will be prevented by closure of the hearing," the document says.

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/when/when0308.htm

The defense wasn't even given permission to view the bodies until August 8, 2003. So HOW could Wecht know jack about the case. He was spouting from the media information, not the facts.

Your dates show how far off you are in your assumptions. You are quoting a man who never saw the bodies making rash statements for ratings.

BTW From May to August is 3 months. I don't think Wecht is psychic, do you? He was making these allegations THREE MONTHS before seeing the bodies. Not exactly an informed opinion, is it?

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


If it is his "expert" opinion that Conner died "in utero, " why then didn't he this as cause of death in the autopsy findings report on Conner Peterson? It sounds to me like he wasn't so sure. He could have amended the report, but did not!



mho [/*]

Dying in utero is not the cause of death. Causes of death are suicide, homicide, accidental or natural. In this case, homicide was the cause of death. Based on the body at the time, there were no obvious signs of trauma, they couldn't determine with certainty what killed this child. The pieces come together when Laci's body was recovered and examined, the DNA results identified them both.

Also, Connor would have been 33 weeks gestational age on Dec. 24th.

AUTOPSY DIAGNOSES1) Phenotypic Male Fetus, estimated gestational age 9 months (33-38 Weeks
based on anthropologic meansurements)2) No Gross external or internal anomalies3) Moderate postmortem decomposition with apparent additional postmortem injuries to torso; no evidence of animal feeding.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965
"Based on measurements of the child's remains, Dr. Peterson originally believed it was a full-term fetus, but he later said the prolonged submersion had probably swollen the body. He said an anthropologist estimated the fetus to be 33 weeks to 38 weeks old."

[snipped
Mcannie Note: A swollen body doesn't change the "bone" measurements, which is how gestational age of an unknown fetus is estimated. And:

snipped
mho [/*]

Link to where Dr. Peterson measured the bones please. I believe he measured the FETUS, not the bones. Or is there no difference?

Dr. Galloway testified that the body was not in good enough shape to measure the bodfy - the figures would have been inaccurateGERAGOS: Right. And so you never did -- you never used Conner's remains to measure from the top of his head to the --

GALLOWAY: No. I'm afraid the body was too decomposed to allow that.

GERAGOS: Also was post-autopsy as well, was it not?

GALLOWAY: Yes. But the limbs, if even if it had been autopsied, we couldn't have laid it out to get an accurate measurement.

GERAGOS: Are you aware that there were x-rays taken?

GALLOWAY: Yes.

GERAGOS: Did you use those x-rays, the x-rays that were taken when he was laid out fully?

GALLOWAY: No.

GERAGOS: If you had used the x-rays that were taken out fully, wouldn't that have given you an accurate crown-heel length?

GALLOWAY: Based on the level of decomposition that was present, I would be very wary of using that, because the resilience of the body allows the skeleton to lay flatter than a normal baby would.

GERAGOS: But you didn't -- that didn't stop you from estimating the crown-heel length, did it?

GALLOWAY: No


http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/GallowayAlison.htm

So body length was an ESTIMATE not a reality.

[Stuy]

Originally posted by AngelWings


He said 33 - 38 weeks, and no full term baby could weigh as little as 3.5 pounds. Nope, never. He also said Conner died in Laci's womb, she was murdered on the 23rd. It all fits perfectly. That's why Scott was convicted. [/*]

ITA:beer:

[Stuy]

Originally posted by mcannie1965




Of course it was an "estimate!" Of course it was. Didn't I state that over and over and over and over again in my postings? [/*]

That's all you post over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and it's getting a bit old.

Didn't Coldwater tell you to stop posting things over and over again? Don't you think you should take her advise?hammer

[Lexus]

Originally posted by AngelWings


He said 33 - 38 weeks, and no full term baby could weigh as little as 3.5 pounds. Nope, never. He also said Conner died in Laci's womb, she was murdered on the 23rd. It all fits perfectly. That's why Scott was convicted. [/*]
Actually, the 3.5 lb weight was "estimated" in the first report.

Dr. Peterson actually weighed the fetus


20 Q. Did you make any other notations or observations
21 about the condition of Conner Peterson?
22 A. Conner was decomposing, in general terms. He
23 weighed 1160 grams. The crown -- again, back to my report

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/transcripts/111703_brianpeterson_part_1.htm

1160 grams is closer to 2.5 rather than 3.5 lbs Definitely NOT full term "baby"

[Land Shark®]

1160 grams = 2.55736224 pounds

Round up & Conner's body weighed 2.6 pounds.

As you say Lexus, obviously NOT a full term fetus.

Not at all.

Thanks so much for putting an end to all that speculation.

It's fact. Conner's body weighed 2.55736224 pounds.

Nothing will ever change that fact.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


He knew what the baby weighed when he estimated his gestational age. Full term is 9 months.

And full term babies can weigh less than 5 lbis. A mothers poor nutrition could account for the low birth weight.

In case you missed my post with the baby weight links, I will post it here for you:

"Low birth weight is a term used to describe babies who weigh less at birth than they should for their gestational age. Full-term babies who weigh less than 5 pounds, 4 ounces at birth are considered low birth weight "

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/low-birth-weight/AN01503












"From early on in pregnancy, babies grow at different rates, so these numbers are merely averages. Your baby's actual length and weight may vary substantially. Don't worry too much if an ultrasound indicates that your baby is much smaller or larger. (Your practitioner will let you know if it's time to worry about how big your baby is.) By full-term, your baby may end up weighing less than 5 pounds or more than 9. "

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

mho [/*]

It has been pointed out to you several times that 9 months festational ag e is NOT full term. And any baby weighing under 5 lbs is kept in the hospital as that is not a full term baby. 2.5 is
HALF of the weight a baby needs to leave a hospital. And ESTIMATED is not the same thing as IS which you keep ignoring. IF you read up on fetal development, you will see that a baby appears fully formed at about 6-7 months. So to the naked eye, it would appear to be full term - yet it would be extremely small - like 2.5 lbs for example.

Conner was not considered "low birth weight" He could not have survived at 2.5 lbs without extraordinary means - intubation, incubator, etc.


He was LESS THAN HALF of what is considered low birth weight do to your link.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965



I am not ignoring "estimated." I have previously addressed it in my posts over and over and over and over again, and still I am told I am ignoring it.

And you keep ignoring the fact that Brian Peterson knew Conner's weight when he estimated his age...and that ALL unknown fetus'age is estimated.

9 month gestational age baby is full term. It it was a 71/2 month baby he would have been estimated at 71/2 months. His bone measurements were within the range of a full term baby.

The mother's poor nutrition can account for the baby's low birth weight...and it is low for a full term baby...and he was full term.

This can be debated until the cows come home, but I accept the autopsy findings report. It is his ultimate conclusion.

mho [/*]
Someone posted earlier on this thread that 9 month gestation is NOT 9 months lunar - in fact it is 3-4 weeks less than full term.

So a 9 month gestational age would be 8 month lunar pregnancy

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


P.S:

Cyril Wecht examined the bodies. To obtain an "accurate" estimate of Conner's age age, Wecht measured the baby's length. "Decomposition does not impact length because a person's bone structure does not shrink from immersion." The baby measured nineteen and one-half inches.

Nineteen and one-half inches is technically within the range of a full term baby, according to Cyril Wecht. AND he said the baby weighed three and one-half pounds. My point about stressing the weight is, Wecht knew his weight when he made an "accurate" meaurement of his age.

Source: Cyril Wecht in his book: Tales From The Morgue.

mho [/*]

Do you have a link to this tewstimony by Cyril Wecht?

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


If she was abducted and held in captivity, and this has to be the case since Conner was a full term baby, I doubt the captors were concerned with nourishment.

Whether he died in Laci's womb or not, she died when she was in her ninth month of pregnancy.

mho [/*]

Ok, let's explore your theory. Where is the evidence she was held anywhere. There was a half a million dollar reward out for her safe return. Are you saying no one would rat on a friend for half a million dollars?

Where was she held? Where is the evidence? Who kidnapped her? There is NO evidence to support your theory.

How was Conner removed from Laci's body? He did not come out the birth canal. There were no cut marks on her uterus. The only possible exit route for Conner was through the fundus. How do you cut into the check of a very pregnant woman and cut the utertus at the top point which is at the 9th rib without destroying or harming any organs in the way - How do you pull a baby out through all those organs and ribs? The only reason he escaped was that ALL of the organs were missing from her chest and abdoment so he could escape.

Don't forget that Conner was in a head down position so they would have to pull this baby out by his buttocks.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


To obtain an "accurate" estimate of age, meansurements are taken.

mho [/*]

Obviously you did NOT read my post about how DR. Allison Galloway explains WHY a length measurement of Conner would not be accurate. I also provided the link should you chose to read it

[bookie]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Hi Land Shark, it does appear that some would love to rewrite history, but we know the facts. Thank goodness the jury did also. [/*]


I believe history is going to be rewritten when the appeal is heard, based on all of the errors in the trial.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


What "evidence" do I have she was held somewhere: CONNER PETERSON's age! I don't need to know how, or where she was held to know she was held in captivity. Conner's age is the "evidence" she must have lived until late January or early February.

How would we know if they did or didn't harm any organs in any way? There were no organs in her left in her body. Only her uterus remained. I don't think a womb thief cares about preserving organs!

I am saying there isn't ROOM to pull a baby out of a body with all those organs there - getting a baby past the rib cage is tough enough with all the lungs, heart, esophagus, stomach in that area.

Well, I know this: Lisa Montgomery removed the baby from Bobbi Jo Stinett's womb, and the baby came out alive and healthy. My point is it can be done. I'll bet you that she took the baby from the widest part of the uterus. IF you can show me WHERE Lisa Montgomery removed the baby from the fundus, I'll buy it.

If you want an answer to your question as to how it is done, don't ask me: Ask women who steal a baby from a womb how is is done. {/QUOTE] My money is that NONE of them removed the babies from the fundus. Can you show me where they did?
[QUOTE]
Right. He did not come out of the birth canal.

Whether Conner was removed from her womb, or expelled from her uterus, he was a full term baby.

If the baby was cut out of Laci's womb, who said a friend knew it? It's not something a womb thief is going to announce. :rolleyes:

mho [/*] ESTIMATED GESTATIONAL AGE 9 MONTHS. IT does not, as you keep claiming say full term baby anywhere in that autopsy report.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by bookie



I believe history is going to be rewritten when the appeal is heard, based on all of the errors in the trial. [/*]

Would you like to post the errors and the responses to them? I don't mean media hype, I mean the actual motions becasue they are all answered with SOURCES as to why they are not errors.'

Fantasy is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


He did say there was evidence sufficiant to be retried. We are allowed to infer from his ruling and what it means. This means, IMO, he doesn't trust the evidence in the criminal trial.



mho [/*]

IF the judge did not trust the evidence in the trial, it would not have allowed it entered, plain and simple. The Judge is the ultimate authority in the trial. If he says no, it means no.

Can you give me a link to that statement by him?

[Stuy]

There were two experts that testified to when Conner died. Dr. Greggory DeVore was the expert for the prosecution and Dr. Charles March was the expert for the defense.

Dr. Greggry DeVore testfied that his expert opinion was that Conner died on December 23.

Dr. Charles March testifed that his expert opinion was that Conner died on December 29.

Dr. March came across as a very poor witness but Dr. DeVore came across as a very credible witness.

The jury had no choice but to except Dr. DeVore's testimony and disregard Dr. March's testimony.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Lexus


Obviously you did NOT read my post about how DR. Allison Galloway explains WHY a length measurement of Conner would not be accurate. I also provided the link should you chose to read it [/*]


Why was she hired to help give an estimated age and then use data that would render her report inaccurate.

She did a number of exams including the parietal cord(40 wks) other measurements. They were 38-40,34-36,36-38, 34-36

There were more results in the higher range and none were lower that 34 weeks.

You can explain away any of the measurements you don't like and pick the ones you do like just like the prosecution did. The prosecution brought forth Dr.DeVore to impeach their other two witnesses regarding age.

Never have I seen the prosecution work so hard to confuse the jury and ener impeach their expert and material witnesses.

3 out 4 witnesses had the baby at least a week older that when Laci disappeared. The one the jury chose was the one that had a precise date of the 23rd between 8:30pm and 12:00am. Maybe it could have been there date of the 25th without exact time on that day.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


9 months estimated gestational age is "full term.. You might not like it, but it is a fact. It is documented.

mho [/*]

You are incorrect. If you had read the links I posted you would know that gstational age is counted from the last menstral period. If you are a woman, you would know that you don't get pregnant then. So gestational age is different than actual age. The weeks that were posted explain what the gestational age was and it was not 9 lunar months as you claim it to be.


IF you don't believe me or the scientific articles that I gave the links to, call your OB/GYN and ask them.

And you still have not shown where it says BABY in the autopsy report. It consistently refers to Conner as a fetus which is NOT a baby yet.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


He did say there was evidence sufficiant to be retried. We are allowed to infer from his ruling and what it means. This means, IMO, he doesn't trust the evidence in the criminal trial.



mho [/*] Yes and the plaintiff only has to have a majaority of the jury to win the award. I think it is a slam dunk too. All they have to do is submit the evidence to this judge. I seriously doubt you will see any high profile people testifying. They sure didn't need Barry Sheck to award the Goldmans, did they?

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


I never suggested in any of my post that the autopsy findings report list Conner was full term. I said 9 months is full term.

I will show you nothing. The fact remains Lisa Montgomery cut the baby from Bobbi Stinnett's uterus, and a "fetus thief" isn't going to concern themselves with organs.

We don't know how much damage was done to Laci's organs "IF" Conner was removed from her uterus. There were none left in her body to determine if they were damaged due to removal of Conner.
mho [/*]

Thank you. Your refusual to show that Lisa Montgomery cut the baby out of the fundus proves my point. It can't be done by an untrained person and I knwo NO DOCTOR who would ever attempt that kind of surgery.

[caphill]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


P.S:

Cyril Wecht examined the bodies. To obtain an "accurate" estimate of Conner's age age, Wecht measured the baby's length. "Decomposition does not impact length because a person's bone structure does not shrink from immersion." The baby measured nineteen and one-half inches.

Nineteen and one-half inches is technically within the range of a full term baby, according to Cyril Wecht. AND he said the baby weighed three and one-half pounds. My point about stressing the weight is, Wecht knew his weight when he made an "accurate" meaurement of his age.

Source: Cyril Wecht in his book: Tales From The Morgue.

mho [/*]


The baby had been dead for along time. The organs were shrinking and liquifing, The baby would have loss of fluids, blood and body mass through decompositon.

Do you think a dead body would maintain its original body weight
after 3-4 months? Baby generally lose weight from the time they born until they go home from hospital.

The bones don't shrink and they are used to help determine age. 19-21inches is right on the chart for a full or near full term baby.

The study of those bones is where Dr. Galloway got her high estimates all the way up to weeks.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Yes, it does say "fetus," but the report does mention "baby."

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CORONER'S OFFICE
Warren E Ruff, Sheriff-CoronerName: PETERSON, Connor
aka DOE,Baby Boy

mho [/*]

But it doesw not say FULL TERM BABY like you keep saying, it says ESTIMATE 9 MONTH GESTATIOnAL FETUS

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by AngelWings


If you re-read my post, you will find what I believe is "good news".

Mcannie, THINK about it. If it was proven, and it was not, that Conner was full term don't you think the NG's, talking heads, the Peterson family,none of the books talk about it, heck, it's not even on the Peterson website that points out all the supposedly innocent things about Scott. Not a peep. When he was convicted and to this day, Conner's age has NEVER been an issue with anyone, anywhere, except here. With you. Don't you feel that's a little telling?:D [/*]

And don't you think, were this the case, the defense could have come up with some one better than Dr. "Cut me some slack" Marsh? The defense's own witness couldn't find anything wrong with the estimation of age put into evidence by the prosecution, the best he could do was try to change the date that Laci conceived. Based on when she announced her pregnancy to her friends.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


How can I show where she cut the baby from? I don't know. What I do know is she cut the baby out of Bobbi Jo Stinnett's uterus. It is not a matter of "refusal!" I don't know. If I did I would tell you!

mho [/*]

Allow me to help you. Didn't take a minute or so but

Bobbie Jo Stinnett suffered eight jagged cuts to her abdomen when she was killed, but it was strangulation that killed the Skidmore, Mo., woman, a medical examiner testified Friday morning.

8 jagged cuts to her abdomen. The fundus is above the belly button by the 9th rib - not the abdomen.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Lexus


Allow me to help you. Didn't take a minute or so but

Bobbie Jo Stinnett suffered eight jagged cuts to her abdomen when she was killed, but it was strangulation that killed the Skidmore, Mo., woman, a medical examiner testified Friday morning.

8 jagged cuts to her abdomen. The fundus is above the belly button by the 9th rib - not the abdomen. [/*]


The latest horrific baby snatching was the recent Andrea Curry-Demus. She duct taped the young mother hands, feet and had plastic with duct over her face. The autopsy showed the mother was partially eviscerate and her uterus cut open. The placenta was found next to her body.

Eviscerated means removal of organs.

One would have to open up the abdomen area to get the uterus, wouldn't they? I doubt a baby snatcher is very careful about they slash the mom to get into the uterus.

[bookie]

Originally posted by AngelWings


lol, ok, let's back out gracefully. You have no idea what the judge is up to, or why he made the call he did, so pretending to know is silly.

The civil trial is a slam dunk, imo. [/*]


The judge said there were issues sufficient to be retried. Apparently he doesn't think the criminal trial answered all questions.

[caphill]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


As I have said previous posts, whether or not he was removed or expelled, he was ful term.

mho [/*]

It is undisputed that the baby came out the opening in the uterus. I had read and read the transcripts and I notice Dr. Peterson never testified as to size of the opening in the uterus.

If it is mentioned in the autopsy we will never know as it remains sealed.

How did the soft little body manage to slip out of the uterus. If it was abrating over time any build up build up of gases would have escaped. If there was a build of gases before the opening then it would only make sense the release of gases would have taken the path of least resistance through the birth canal and cervix rather than blasting a new opening in the top of the uterus.

The build of gases from decoposition would have happened much closer to death than almost 4 months later with the mom in an almost skeleton state.

Dare anyone here to be able to link to any real info about coffin death cases. How many medical case files are out there to review.

Again if Connor was in head down birth position and was expelled, why through the top with his soft little butt rather propelling with his head in the natural opening of the cervix?

[bookie]

Originally posted by Lexus


Would you like to post the errors and the responses to them? I don't mean media hype, I mean the actual motions becasue they are all answered with SOURCES as to why they are not errors.'

Fantasy is a wonderful thing, isn't it? [/*]


There are many issues. The boat rocking is one. The musical chairs in the jury room another. And let's not sit here and pretend that just because the prosecution filed responses to the motions that the issues were answered. The appelate courts will make the decision, not Fladager, Distaso or Delucchi's rulings. Judge's aren't always right which is why we have appeals courts.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by caphill



The latest horrific baby snatching was the recent Andrea Curry-Demus. She duct taped the young mother hands, feet and had plastic with duct over her face. The autopsy showed the mother was partially eviscerate and her uterus cut open. The placenta was found next to her body.

Eviscerated means removal of organs.

One would have to open up the abdomen area to get the uterus, wouldn't they? I doubt a baby snatcher is very careful about they slash the mom to get into the uterus. [/*]

The fundus was at the 9oth rib level, not in the abdomen. Cutting through the abdoment to get to the uterus is the logical thing to do. Laci had no cuts on her uterus. The only openeing was the abraded edges of the fundus (top of the uterus) which means that is the only place someone could have cut the baby out. But Conner was in a head down position, so to remove him from the vundus would have entailed a breach birth through multiple thorasic organs, Cutting through th e abdomen at the widest point is what most baby snatchers do. Also there is no case I can find where baby snatching was not done by a woman.

Oh, Conner would noit have survived Laci's death by more than a half an hour so the person would have to work quickly.

Could a woman have transported Laci to Berkeley and deposited her on the rocks by herself? Not to mention placing conner on a mud flat 1/4 - 1@ a mile from a paved path at low tide.? Conner's body was so fragile that a trained coroner's investigator was afraid to handle him with his hands - yet an untrained person could put the body there and not damage it in any way shape or form. Yeahrite

[caphill]

Originally posted by AngelWings


We're talking about the facts of the Scott Peterson case. Any other case is non-related. [/*]

I believe it was Lexus that brought up the womb snatcher cases of Bobbie Jo Stinnett. The one I mentioned just happened earlier this month.

Andrea Curry-Dumus cut up that poor mother, removed some organs to snatch the baby. She brought baby to hospital with word attached though she left placenta behind. She had no medical trainig but was able to get that baby out. The good news is the baby survived.

[vonna]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


What "evidence" do I have she was held somewhere: CONNER PETERSON's age! I don't need to know how, or where she was held to know she was held in captivity. Conner's age is the "evidence" she must have lived until late January or early February.

How would we know if they did or didn't harm any organs in any way? There were no organs in her left in her body. Only her uterus remained. I don't think a womb thief cares about preserving organs!

Well, I know this: Lisa Montgomery removed the baby from Bobbi Jo Stinett's womb, and the baby came out alive and healthy. My point is it can be done.

If you want an answer to your question as to how it is done, don't ask me: Ask women who steal a baby from a womb how is is done.

Right. He did not come out of the birth canal.

Whether Conner was removed from her womb, or expelled from her uterus, he was a full term baby.

If the baby was cut out of Laci's womb, who said a friend knew it? It's not something a womb thief is going to announce. :rolleyes:


What utter nonsense!!!!
mho [/*]

[Lexus]

Originally posted by bookie



There are many issues. The boat rocking is one. The musical chairs in the jury room another. And let's not sit here and pretend that just because the prosecution filed responses to the motions that the issues were answered. The appelate courts will make the decision, not Fladager, Distaso or Delucchi's rulings. Judge's aren't always right which is why we have appeals courts. [/*]

Judge Delucchi adressed teh boat issue BEFORE they got into the boat. Funny, the defense is only saying the 2 jurors were dismissed incorrectly. Why isn't he claiming that Fran Gorman was dismissed incorrectly? Maybe becasue she thought he was guilty???????? There have been cases where MORE than 3 jurors were dismissed and nothing has been over turned.

And you are incorrect, Judge Delucchi's rulings will mos tlikely be3 upheld. You need to stop reading the Geragos spin on efverything and look at the whole picture. The appellate court will indeed look at the motions and the answers. They won't just take Geragos's lies for facts/

[Lexus]

Originally posted by Lexus


Judge Delucchi adressed teh boat issue BEFORE they got into the boat. Funny, the defense is only saying the 2 jurors were dismissed incorrectly. Why isn't he claiming that Fran Gorman was dismissed incorrectly? Maybe becasue she thought he was guilty???????? There have been cases where MORE than 3 jurors were dismissed and nothing has been over turned.

And you are incorrect, Judge Delucchi's rulings will mos tlikely be3 upheld. You need to stop reading the Geragos spin on efverything and look at the whole picture. The appellate court will indeed look at the motions and the answers. They won't just take Geragos's lies for facts/ [

My proof that you are believe Geragos's lies? Most of the answers to his motions were not efven filed by Dista
so or Fladager. If you read them, you would know that.

Alswo, please look at what the jurors say about the so-called rocking (a work only Geragos uses BTW) One juror was seated, on was kneeling and one was standing. The standing juror would have the most opportunity to "rock" the boat. That was Gregory Jackson who was dismissed.
/*\]

[caphill]

Originally posted by Lexus


The fundus was at the 9oth rib level, not in the abdomen. Cutting through the abdoment to get to the uterus is the logical thing to do. Laci had no cuts on her uterus. The only openeing was the abraded edges of the fundus (top of the uterus) which means that is the only place someone could have cut the baby out. But Conner was in a head down position, so to remove him from the vundus would have entailed a breach birth through multiple thorasic organs, Cutting through th e abdomen at the widest point is what most baby snatchers do. Also there is no case I can find where baby snatching was not done by a woman.

Oh, Conner would noit have survived Laci's death by more than a half an hour so the person would have to work quickly.

Could a woman have transported Laci to Berkeley and deposited her on the rocks by herself? Not to mention placing conner on a mud flat 1/4 - 1@ a mile from a paved path at low tide.? Conner's body was so fragile that a trained coroner's investigator was afraid to handle him with his hands - yet an untrained person could put the body there and not damage it in any way shape or form. Yeahrite [/*]


Laci's 9th rib showed damage and she had in force fractures to other ribs.

She had nothing left of her upper torse above her naval. Organs were gone and ribs fractured.

The force of the marine enviroment would cause that kind of damage to her torso but leave the little fetus intact with his penis intact and his eye lashes intact.

Something wrong with that picture.

[Lexus]

Musical chairs in trhe jury roo?????? ROFLMAO Justin Falconer, the blabbermouth was dismissed for not keeping his mouth shut. He then proved it by plastering himself all over the airwaves at every opportunity.

Fran Gorman admistted to doing research.

Gregory Jackson ASKED to be removed and then did everything he could to ensure it by discussing the case outside of deliberations. He also refused to deliberate and he admitted it to the jduge.

Everything else is the Geragos spin on what happened as the transcripts in the judges chambers are sealed.

[bookie]

Originally posted by Lexus
Musical chairs in trhe jury roo?????? ROFLMAO Justin Falconer, the blabbermouth was dismissed for not keeping his mouth shut. He then proved it by plastering himself all over the airwaves at every opportunity.

Fran Gorman admistted to doing research.

Gregory Jackson ASKED to be removed and then did everything he could to ensure it by discussing the case outside of deliberations. He also refused to deliberate and he admitted it to the jduge.

Everything else is the Geragos spin on what happened as the transcripts in the judges chambers are sealed. [/*]


All 3 were targeted by John Guinasso. He lied to the judge about Falconer and omitted the fact that another juror was involved in the one discussion that took place. And alternate 6 admitted he asked the question about the anchor being sufficient for that boat, not Falconer but Guinasso left that out too. He ignored Fran Gorman's research until he decided he was ready to get Jackson off of the jury. Then he sent the judge a note about her research.

You left out Jackson's claims of being worried about his safety in the jury room as well as the one about feeling pressured to reach the popular verdict. The appelate court won't overlook it as easily as you do.

Portions of the transcripts of the juror's interviews have been available for years. Since 2005 to be exact. And there was enough there to see exactly what went on in that deliberation room.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by bookie



All 3 were targeted by John Guinasso. He lied to the judge about Falconer and omitted the fact that another juror was involved in the one discussion that took place. And alternate 6 admitted he asked the question about the anchor being sufficient for that boat, not Falconer but Guinasso left that out too. He ignored Fran Gorman's research until he decided he was ready to get Jackson off of the jury. Then he sent the judge a note about her research.

You left out Jackson's claims of being worried about his safety in the jury room as well as the one about feeling pressured to reach the popular verdict. The appelate court won't overlook it as easily as you do.

Portions of the transcripts of the juror's interviews have been available for years. Since 2005 to be exact. And there was enough there to see exactly what went on in that deliberation room. [/*]

Where do you get your facts. John was the keeper of the rule book. What he claimed was backed up by other jurors. Falconer said another juror talked to his girl friend about the case?. YOur information about Gormnan is incorrect also. Jackson wanted OFF that jury and he asked to be removed and cited the reasons which are sealed. Fran turned herself in.

REad the resoponses to teh allegations. It will make things much clearer to you. The jurors themselves said that Fran told on herself. I will believe them before I believ anything out of Mark Geragos's lying mouth.

Pleaswe share those transcripts with us so we can believe whaqt you arwe saying. Thank you I just reread what you posted and you said "portions" are available. Portions do not tell the whole story as you should well know. But share theem anyway, please.

[bookie]

Originally posted by Lexus


Where do you get your facts. John was the keeper of the rule book. What he claimed was backed up by other jurors. Falconer said another juror talked to his girl friend about the case?. YOur information about Gormnan is incorrect also. Jackson wanted OFF that jury and he asked to be removed and cited the reasons which are sealed. Fran turned herself in.

REad the resoponses to teh allegations. It will make things much clearer to you. The jurors themselves said that Fran told on herself. I will believe them before I believ anything out of Mark Geragos's lying mouth.

Pleaswe share those transcripts with us so we can believe whaqt you arwe saying. Thank you [/*]


The only people Fran told was the jurors in the deliberation room. They kept quiet. It wasn't until they were about to vote on day 5 that a note was sent to the judge and she wasn't the one who sent it.

What Guinasso claimed was NOT backed up by other jurors. The majority of them denied his claims. The majority of them answered flat out no when asked if they heard Falconer talk about Laci's weight and the other lies Guinasso came up with, others said they didn't know or weren't around (one went out to smoke by himself).

Falconer never said another juror talked about his girlfriend. His girlfriend told him Nancy Grace was talking about him. And I was partially wrong in the last post about Alternate 6. He did admit to talking about the evidence with Falconer though and Guinasso left that out of his note to Delucchi.

This is from an interview on Fran Gorman's own website.

Early in the deliberations, Gorman mentioned that she'd gone to the Internet and accessed the site. But before she could even tell the other jurors what she'd found, she felt a tap on her shoulder. A fellow juror was cautioning her not to discuss her findings. A couple of jurors seemed bothered but didn't make it a big deal.

But when they appeared close to taking a vote on guilt on day 5 of deliberations, two of the jurors said they didn't think Gorman could be objective or fair because of the research she'd done. A note was sent to the judge, who after interviewing her and other jurors removed her from the panel.

http://www.gormanlink.com/Chronicle_story.htm


Juror 5: I think it's going to be impossible--well, I think it would be better infinitely better if I were not the focus of some of this hostility. And, as I say, my motives may have been impugned. And there are other issues. I'm not sure that my safety is even not--

Juror 5: As I say, there have been comments made to me that personally that-- that have made me reflect on whether or not my safety is at issue here.

http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/peterson/captrsn22505dmot.pdf

The prosecutions response to the motions doesn't prove anything. That is their opinion about what happened. The appelate court will have the final say and they'll have the full transcripts of the jurors in chambers interviews. They'll see exactly what went on in there.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by bookie



The only people Fran told was the jurors in the deliberation room. They kept quiet. It wasn't until they were about to vote on day 5 that a note was sent to the judge and she wasn't the one who sent it.

What Guinasso claimed was NOT backed up by other jurors. The majority of them denied his claims. The majority of them answered flat out no when asked if they heard Falconer talk

That is not true. The only ones who claimed not to hear him were the ones who were not in the room. Others testified they heard him. http://www.gormanlink.com/Chronicle_story.htm[/url]

Link doesn't work.

In We the Jury, it was another juror who turned Gorman in adn it says nothing about ready to take any vote. In fact another juror sent a note to the foreman who reported her. So st op making a man who was trying to follow the law into a bad guy.


Juror 5: I think it's going to be impossible--well, I think it would be better infinitely better if I were not the focus of some of this hostility. And, as I say, my motives may have been impugned. And there are other issues. I'm not sure that my safety is even not--

Juror 5: As I say, there have been comments made to me that personally that-- that have made me reflect on whether or not my safety is at issue here.

Why aren't you posting any of what the Judge asked him. And why did Jackson himself REDACT 3 pages of his statements??????

http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/peterson/captrsn22505dmot.pdf
[/QUOPTE]
The prosecutions response to the motions doesn't prove anything. That is their opinion about what happened. The appelate court will have the final say and they'll have the full transcripts of the jurors in chambers interviews. [/QUOTE]a yes and they'll have the truth and not the Geragos spin too a They'll see exactly what went on in there. [/*]No, but there is more of Jackson's testimony here:

http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Docs/030905mar14_prosecution.pdf

[impartial]

Originally posted by caphill



Why was she hired to help give an estimated age and then use data that would render her report inaccurate.

She did a number of exams including the parietal cord(40 wks) other measurements. They were 38-40,34-36,36-38, 34-36

There were more results in the higher range and none were lower that 34 weeks.

You can explain away any of the measurements you don't like and pick the ones you do like just like the prosecution did. The prosecution brought forth Dr.DeVore to impeach their other two witnesses regarding age.

Never have I seen the prosecution work so hard to confuse the jury and ener impeach their expert and material witnesses.

3 out 4 witnesses had the baby at least a week older that when Laci disappeared. The one the jury chose was the one that had a precise date of the 23rd between 8:30pm and 12:00am. Maybe it could have been there date of the 25th without exact time on that day. [/*]


Hi Cap :seeya:


Do you recall what Dr. Galloway testified as to the length of the femur bone and gestational age? It's been a long time since I read the transcripts.

I recall that I was amazed that the judge allowed the prosecution's witness to put the femur bone in a vat of water and do an ultrasound to come up with a different estimate of gestinational age; rather than the actual length of the femur.

It's going to be an interesting civil trial.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by impartial



Hi Cap :seeya:


Do you recall what Dr. Galloway testified as to the length of the femur bone and gestational age? It's been a long time since I read the transcripts.

I recall that I was amazed that the judge allowed the prosecution's witness to put the femur bone in a vat of water and do an ultrasound to come up with a different estimate of gestinational age; rather than the actual length of the femur.

It's going to be an interesting civil trial. [/*]

33-38 weeks It's in the testimony. And also in the testimony is the whys of doing it that way. It's standard anthropological procedure.

http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/GallowayAlison.htm

[bookie]

Originally posted by Lexus


That is not true. The only ones who claimed not to hear him were the ones who were not in the room. Others testified they heard him.
The prosecutions response to the motions doesn't prove anything. That is their opinion about what happened. The appelate court will have the final say and they'll have the full transcripts of the jurors in chambers interviews. a yes and they'll have the truth and not the Geragos spin too No, but there is more of Jackson's testimony here:

http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Docs/030905mar14_prosecution.pdf [/*][/QUOTE]


http://www.gormanlink.com/Chronicle_story.htm

The link worked just fine for me. I'm not sitting here all night typing out the entire motion. I gave you enough that you could search the motion to find those specific areas.

The prosecutions response isn't going to help them with regards to Gregory Jackson. In their own response they included the part where he complained about being pressured into reaching the "popular" verdict or "might produce the best book". And by the time this goes to appeal I have no doubt Jackson will have been interviewed about what exactly happened during deliberations.

Read the juror's replies when asked if Falconer talked about Laci's weight, Brocchini or the MPD. The majority of the juror's said no he didn't talk about them. Then read where alternate 6 admitted to talking about the anchor. When your done with that maybe you could point out to me where Guinasso mentioned that to the judge because I sure didn't see that anywhere. It appears that just didn't matter to Guinasso when he was making his report to the judge. He was only interested in the one person who everyone knew was leaning ng.

Fran Gorman was leaning to the g side and was cautioned to be quiet about her research. She openly supported Jackson as foreman of the jury. She had to go so he could be removed. Funny how the other jurors didn't make a big deal out of her research until then.

[bookie]

Originally posted by Lexus


33-38 weeks It's in the testimony. And also in the testimony is the whys of doing it that way. It's standard anthropological procedure.

http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/GallowayAlison.htm [/*]



GERAGOS: For the femur, 36 to 38?

GALLOWAY: That's correct.



GERAGOS: Okay. Out of those fourteen measurements, did one of those come back at 33 weeks?

GALLOWAY: No.

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by caphill



The latest horrific baby snatching was the recent Andrea Curry-Demus. She duct taped the young mother hands, feet and had plastic with duct over her face. The autopsy showed the mother was partially eviscerate and her uterus cut open. The placenta was found next to her body.

Eviscerated means removal of organs.

One would have to open up the abdomen area to get the uterus, wouldn't they? I doubt a baby snatcher is very careful about they slash the mom to get into the uterus. [/*]

So tell us, did they only open the very top of the uterus? And while I'm sure womb robbers aren't to concerned about internal organs, I can't imagine any of them heading right for the rib cage...

[Lexus]

Originally posted by bookie




GERAGOS: For the femur, 36 to 38?

GALLOWAY: That's correct.



GERAGOS: Okay. Out of those fourteen measurements, did one of those come back at 33 weeks?

GALLOWAY: No. [/*]

Not fair to cut and past one liners. You could prove Geragos mudered laci doing that

[bookie]

Originally posted by Lexus


Not fair to cut and past one liners. You could prove Geragos mudered laci doing that [/*]


Or prove that the femur measured 36 to 38 weeks and not the 33 to 38 that was claimed. ;)

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by bookie




GERAGOS: For the femur, 36 to 38?

GALLOWAY: That's correct.



GERAGOS: Okay. Out of those fourteen measurements, did one of those come back at 33 weeks?

GALLOWAY: No. [/*]

None of Dr. Galloway's measurements excluded 33 weeks (http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/GallowayAlison.htm) .

GALLOWAY: Yes. What we do is, we take usually about a one standard deviation. That would put the 33 to 38 weeks. This would include the majority of children who are examined at that age would be within that range of length of the bone.

HARRIS: So the ultimate conclusion, based on your examination of Conner Peterson's remains, were his age that you reported back to Contra Costa County was 33 to 38 weeks?

[impartial]

Originally posted by Lexus


33-38 weeks It's in the testimony. And also in the testimony is the whys of doing it that way. It's standard anthropological procedure.

http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/GallowayAlison.htm [/*]


Thanks for the link.

She estimated the gestational age at 36 to 38 weeks based on the femur:

GERAGOS: For the femur, 36 to 38?

GALLOWAY: That's correct.


It was Dr. DeVore, IIRC, that estimated an earlier gestational age based on doing an ultrasound of the femur in a vat of water, indicating the vat emulated an in utero ultrasound.

[bookie]

Originally posted by Nightowl


None of Dr. Galloway's measurements excluded33 weeks (http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/GallowayAlison.htm) .

GALLOWAY: Yes. What we do is, we take usually about a one standard deviation. That would put the 33 to 38 weeks. This would include the majority of children who are examined at that age would be within that range of length of the bone.

HARRIS: So the ultimate conclusion, based on your examination of Conner Peterson's remains, were his age that you reported back to Contra Costa County was 33 to 38 weeks? [/*]


AFTER she added a cushion but the fact remains the femur measured 36 to 38 weeks, not the 33 that was claimed and no bones measured 33.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by Nightowl


So tell us, did they only open the very top of the uterus? And while I'm sure womb robbers aren't to concerned about internal organs, I can't imagine any of them heading right for the rib cage... [/*]

Kia Johnson was victim.

An autopsy completed on an unidentified woman Saturday revealed cuts to the victim's lower body
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/16930042/detail.html

That's certainly not thru the fundus.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Nightowl


So tell us, did they only open the very top of the uterus? And while I'm sure womb robbers aren't to concerned about internal organs, I can't imagine any of them heading right for the rib cage... [/*]


I have never read a detailed description of the actual method any of the baby snatchers used. I expected to never see in print the many ways to cut open an uterus and pull out a baby. I never read of any of the crude methods of baby snatching that left the mother alive and in many cases the fetus doesn't survive.

[caphill]

Originally posted by impartial



Hi Cap :seeya:


Do you recall what Dr. Galloway testified as to the length of the femur bone and gestational age? It's been a long time since I read the transcripts.

I recall that I was amazed that the judge allowed the prosecution's witness to put the femur bone in a vat of water and do an ultrasound to come up with a different estimate of gestinational age; rather than the actual length of the femur.

It's going to be an interesting civil trial. [/*]

Dr. Galloway gave measurements of the humerus, femur and tibia and parietal cord height.

She used medical ref of Fazekas and Kosa (Hungarian data) and Sherwood written 2001 US data.

First set of measurements guide reference of Fazelkas and Kosa and 2nd is Sherwood

R. humerus 5.8 =36-38 R. humerus 35.6 weeks

R. femur 63.8 = 36=38 R femur 35.1weeks

R. tibia 57.5 = 36-38 R tibia 36.3 weeks

R. parietal cord height was 40 weeks
" perimeter height 34 weeks
cord width 34 week
" perimeter width 36 weeks

R frontal cord height 38-40 weeks
perimeter height 34-38 weeks
cord width 36-38 weeks
perimeter width 34-36 weeks


She used one week standard deviation

As hard as she tried with deviations she still had the baby at least a week older that he was on the 23rd of Dec. and you can't ignore the R. parietal cord height as 40 weeks and the frontal cord as 38-40 weeks.

His crown to heel measurement was 19 or 19/1/2 inches which is on the chart of 19-21 inches for 36-38 weeks.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Nightowl


None of Dr. Galloway's measurements excluded 33 weeks (http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/GallowayAlison.htm) .

GALLOWAY: Yes. What we do is, we take usually about a one standard deviation. That would put the 33 to 38 weeks. This would include the majority of children who are examined at that age would be within that range of length of the bone.

HARRIS: So the ultimate conclusion, based on your examination of Conner Peterson's remains, were his age that you reported back to Contra Costa County was 33 to 38 weeks? [/*]

I understood one week deviation should have taken 1 week from lowest measurement and add 1 week to hightest. Which would be 33-41 weeks.

Certainly I am no expert but actual bones measurments for a fetus supposedly at 32 weeks to measure in more than one instances of 40 weeks would have been a whopper of a baby if carried to full term. Laci's Drs had said she was having a normal pregnancy. As a matter of fact her last ultra sound showed the baby smaller and they changed her due to a week later.

Orininal due date Feb 10 and was changed to Feb 16 or 17th.

[caphill]

Originally posted by litchfield29
What a grusome topic. BTW, what does it have to do with Scott Peterson? I'm sure I'm justing not getting it because I'm dense. TIA

mo [/*]


There was a grusome murder of Laci Peterson and many think she was slashed opened and her baby taken from her body.

If the evidence shows the baby lived a week or longer than Dec 23rd, that shows Laci lived at least that long after her abduction.

This is the crux of the evidence that could exonerate Scott Peterson as the killer of his wife.

[DeeN]

TIA

[Lexus]

Originally posted by DeeN
TIA [/*]It was scheduled for July 8, but Petersons attys filed a motion to delay it. Teh hearing was the 21st but anotehr motion was filed the friday before the hearing and there has been no date set.

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by caphill


I understood one week deviation should have taken 1 week from lowest measurement and add 1 week to hightest. Which would be 33-41 weeks.

Certainly I am no expert but actual bones measurments for a fetus supposedly at 32 weeks to measure in more than one instances of 40 weeks would have been a whopper of a baby if carried to full term. Laci's Drs had said she was having a normal pregnancy. As a matter of fact her last ultra sound showed the baby smaller and they changed her due to a week later.[/*]

I don't see where you are getting one week as the standard deviation. All I see from her testimony is that she applied one standard deviation of the measurements to estimate the age. Meaning that while the majority of babies will fall within this range, it is expected that some won't.

Originally posted by caphill
Orininal due date Feb 10 and was changed to Feb 16 or 17th. [/*]

And Dr. DeVore, the fetal age specialist, believe this change in due dates was incorrect. That the initial sonogram is the "gold standard" in determining the age of a fetus.

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by Lexus
It was scheduled for July 8, but Petersons attys filed a motion to delay it. Teh hearing was the 21st but anotehr motion was filed the friday before the hearing and there has been no date set. [/*]

<sarcasm> You would think with all the so obvious evidence for Scott's innocence that his lawyers would be in a rush to start this civil trial. </sarcasm>

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Nightowl


<sarcasm> You would think with all the so obvious evidence for Scott's innocence that his lawyers would be in a rush to start this civil trial. </sarcasm> [/*]What, you don't think they have to prepare?

[bookie]

Originally posted by Nightowl


<sarcasm> You would think with all the so obvious evidence for Scott's innocence that his lawyers would be in a rush to start this civil trial. </sarcasm> [/*]


Scott's attorney filing for the delay came from Greta. Fox News isn't known for accuracy but even if his side did request it that isn't surprising. I doubt they thought the judge would agree with them.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Nightowl


I don't see where you are getting one week as the standard deviation. All I see from her testimony is that she applied one standard deviation of the measurements to estimate the age. Meaning that while the majority of babies will fall within this range, it is expected that some won't.



And Dr. DeVore, the fetal age specialist, believe this change in due dates was incorrect. That the initial sonogram is the "gold standard" in determining the age of a fetus. [/*]
:confused: Thought Devore called it a "gold standard" to determine date of conception. And I thought Devore was a specialist in fetal development, not fetal age.

:shrug:

[Lexus]

Originally posted by Nightowl


I don't see where you are getting one week as the standard deviation. All I see from her testimony is that she applied one standard deviation of the measurements to estimate the age. Meaning that while the majority of babies will fall within this range, it is expected that some won't.



And Dr. DeVore, the fetal age specialist, believe this change in due dates was incorrect. That the initial sonogram is the "gold standard" in determining the age of a fetus. [/*]

The change of 6 days on her due date was NEVER told to Laci. According to the doctors at that clinic, a change must be a week to be officially changed.

Scoitt was never told at teh clinic either. He found it out when he got her records for McAllister so he ran with it.

All the doctors said a change is not a change until it's at least a week. The notation of the different date of confinement was made in September by Dr. Yip who told Det Owen that it was not a change. Scott didn't know about it until AFTER Laci went missing.

Q. Did Dr. Yip indicate to you when the due date was?
7 A. He said around February the 10th, I believe. Yes.
8 Q. So the due date is estimated February 10th?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And a few weeks later, do they do some type of
11 procedure, an ultrasound, I believe you said?
12 A. Yes, sonogram.
13 Q. Sonogram?
14 And after that, did they indicate if they were -- kept
15 the same due date?
16 A. Yes. They said that the sonogram indicated the
17 size of the baby to be close enough, within a week of the
18 calendar, so they kept the due date as February the 10th.
19 Q. And do you recall when it was that that ultrasound
20 was performed?

http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipeterson/transcripts/111303owen.htm


DSr. Tow-Der said there was no date change

http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/Towder.htm


http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/Edraki.htm

Dr. Endraki also says that the first ultrasound is the most acurate.

HTH

[caphill]

Originally posted by Nightowl


I don't see where you are getting one week as the standard deviation. All I see from her testimony is that she applied one standard deviation of the measurements to estimate the age. Meaning that while the majority of babies will fall within this range, it is expected that some won't.



And Dr. DeVore, the fetal age specialist, believe this change in due dates was incorrect. That the initial sonogram is the "gold standard" in determining the age of a fetus. [/*]


Dr Yip was one of Laci's Drs that did an ultrsound at around 20th weeks to determine size and age of fetus. Based on his findings he changed the due on her medical chart to Feb 16th.

Dr Devore challenges the OB GYN doctors that have been seeing Laci since July 11th to their info on her medical charts? He has one femur bone he sticks in water and believes his analysis of this one bone is more worthy than Dr. Yip who looked at the entire ultra sound.

Dr. Devore was ceretainly an expert in earning his fees to testify for the prosecution. His testimony contradicted the States other 2 witnesses that gave the estimated age of the fetus to be at least a week and up to 5 weeks older than Dr. Devore exact dates.

DId Dr. Yip get called to testify? If not, wonder why, since he was the Dr. that changed due to Feb 16th.

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by caphill



Dr Yip was one of Laci's Drs that did an ultrsound at around 20th weeks to determine size and age of fetus. Based on his findings he changed the due on her medical chart to Feb 16th.

Dr Devore challenges the OB GYN doctors that have been seeing Laci since July 11th to their info on her medical charts? He has one femur bone he sticks in water and believes his analysis of this one bone is more worthy than Dr. Yip who looked at the entire ultra sound.

Dr. Devore was ceretainly an expert in earning his fees to testify for the prosecution. His testimony contradicted the States other 2 witnesses that gave the estimated age of the fetus to be at least a week and up to 5 weeks older than Dr. Devore exact dates.

DId Dr. Yip get called to testify? If not, wonder why, since he was the Dr. that changed due to Feb 16th. [/*]

Nope, Geragos didn't call Dr. Yip at all. Funny, that. Perhaps Dr. Yip would have just shot more holes in the Peterson's defense? Amazing!

Where are you getting Devore didn't look at ultrasounds from Connor? What two other witnesses from the state? One more time, NO ONE excluded 33 weeks in their estimates. Devore did more a more specific determination based on femur length. And I didn't hear anything from the defense challenge his methods. The best Dr. March could do was try to change the conception date....

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by alter ego

:confused: Thought Devore called it a "gold standard" to determine date of conception. And I thought Devore was a specialist in fetal development, not fetal age.

:shrug: [/*]

I guess it's safe to say he's an expert in ultrasound. Which would include the aspects of fetal development as well as age. His site is here (http://www.fetal.com/) , if you are interested.

And, given date of conception, I think most folks with basic math skills can determine fetal age? :shrug:

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by alter ego
What, you don't think they have to prepare? [/*]

Gosh, listening to the experts on the board here, all the defense really have to do is stick their fingers in their ears so they can't hear anything and shout "Connor was full-term! la la la la la LA LA LA LA LA"

Should be simple, yes?

:chicken:

[Lexus]

Originally posted by insighter


CH, where are you getting your info that Dr. Gregory Devore "was an expert in earning his fees? TIA

Dr. Gregory Devore is an expert in Maternal-Fetal Medicine. HTH

CH, please explain in your own words that, "his testimony 'contradicted' States other two witnesses..." TIA

Dr. Yip did not testify for the prosecution nor for the defense. HTH [/*]

I see more fingers in ears. Even the defense's expert, Dr. March uses Dr. Devore as an expert.

I want to know where the poster's M.D.'s come from - the Geragos University of Lies?

[caphill]

Originally posted by insighter


CH, where are you getting your info that Dr. Gregory Devore "was an expert in earning his fees? TIA

Dr. Gregory Devore is an expert in Maternal-Fetal Medicine. HTH

CH, please explain in your own words that, "his testimony 'contradicted' States other two witnesses..." TIA

Dr. Yip did not testify for the prosecution nor for the defense. HTH [/*]


The State's other two witnesses's testimony that contradicted Dr. DeVore was Dr. Galloway and Dr. Peterson.

Dr. Yip was the OBGYN who did the ultrasound on Sept 24th and based on his exmaination of the development of fetus changed the due date to Feb 16th.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by caphill



Dr Yip was one of Laci's Drs that did an ultrsound at around 20th weeks to determine size and age of fetus. Based on his findings he changed the due on her medical chart to Feb 16th.

Dr Devore challenges the OB GYN doctors that have been seeing Laci since July 11th to their info on her medical charts? He has one femur bone he sticks in water and believes his analysis of this one bone is more worthy than Dr. Yip who looked at the entire ultra sound.

Dr. Devore was ceretainly an expert in earning his fees to testify for the prosecution. His testimony contradicted the States other 2 witnesses that gave the estimated age of the fetus to be at least a week and up to 5 weeks older than Dr. Devore exact dates.

DId Dr. Yip get called to testify? If not, wonder why, since he was the Dr. that changed due to Feb 16th. [/*]

WE have his statement to Det. Owens that I posted with a link and also here's what the Doctor who SAW her on Dec 23rd said as to her due date:

GERAGOS: Okay. The -- did you make a determination at any point as to -- on the 23rd what the expected date of birth was going to be?

TOW-DER: You mean the estimated date of delivery? –

GERAGOS: Yes.

TOW-DER: for the patient? That was already determined previously.

GERAGOS: And what -- and what was it?

TOW-DER: February 10th.

GERAGOS: And did you have another notation in there for February 16th in the file?

TOW-DER: There is a notation in the file.

GERAGOS: And how was the February 16th date calculated?

TOW-DER: That was calculated by her second ultrasound that was done in the office.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that was not something that you did; is that correct?

TOW-DER: No.

There was a notation in the chart but NOT a change of the due date.

[Lexus]

Let's look at credentials:

MARCH: Since 1966.

GERAGOS: Okay. And as a doctor for the last whatever number of years that is, the -- have you specialized in any particular area?

MARCH: After my four years of training in obstetrics and gynecology, I took a fellowship in reproductive endocrinology and infertility, which began in 1973, and therefore since that time my practice has been limited to gynecology, reproductive endocrinology, and infertility, and telescopic surgery.

GERAGOS: Okay. Have you ever published anything in these areas?

MARCH: I have published probably about a hundred and ten papers in scientific journals, more than 80 textbook chapters, some videotapes, audiotapes, those kinds of things.

GERAGOS: Okay. Have you ever won any awards or belong to any professional societies?

MARCH: I guess the first award was for valor in Vietnam during my Vietnam service. I've won teaching awards from the University of Southern California when I was on the faculty for 30 years. Full time faculty. And since 1990 to present I have been named as -- in the textbook The Best Doctors In America. At the time of the first edition of that book in 1990, I was the only person in the country named in both reproductive endocrinology and infertility and reproductive surgery.

GERAGOS: What is reproductive endo whatever, I can't pronounce it?

MARCH: Reproductive endocrinology and infertility is a subspecialty of obstetrics and gynecology devoted to -- I guess the fertility part is pretty straightforward to understand. Helping couples who have problems -- both diagnosis and treatment of couples who have problems with fertility. And then the reproductive endocrinology part is the evaluation of hormonal problems, to a small extent male but basically female, and then to correct -- both the diagnosis of those and then to find the correction of these problems. Hormones of pregnancy, hormones of pre-pregnancy, with women with menstrual abnormalities, and, of course, the management of menopausal problems, on the other side of the reproductive years.

GERAGOS: Have you ever testified as an expert in this area?



Let's see: I was the only person in the country named in both reproductive endocrinology and infertility and reproductive surgery.

I guess the fertility part is pretty straightforward to understand. Helping couples who have problems -- both diagnosis and treatment of couples who have problems with fertility. And then the reproductive endocrinology part is the evaluation of hormonal problems, to a small extent male but basically female,

do you see fetal age or fetal development in there???


vs:

DEVORE: In obstetrics and gynecology, which is the profession of caring for women, there are three subspecialties that require special training. And one of those is called maternal-fetal medicine. That is caring for the mother or the fetus that may to be at high risk. And that involves doing ultrasound as one of the main things that we do to evaluate the fetus.

HARRIS: In preparation for this profession did you go to medical school?

DEVORE: Yes, I did.

HARRIS: Where did you go to medical school?

DEVORE: University of Utah Medical School.

HARRIS: Is this a standard program for an M.D.?

DEVORE: Yes. Traditional four-year educational process.

HARRIS: After that what do you do?

DEVORE: After that I then did an internship at Yale University in Connecticut in internal medicine. Then I did a residency program in obstetrics and gynecology for three years at Yale University. Then I did a fellowship in maternal-fetal medicine for two years at Yale University.

HARRIS: This fellowship, what is that?

DEVORE: That is special training that allows you to be certified as a specialist in maternal-fetal medicine. Involves additional training, research, writing papers, for example, learning new material. And then after that is completed, then you sit for the boards for where you have to be board certified. That's the eventual end of the process.



HARRIS Would you say that is -- let's back up to something you said. You said after these women get pregnant, you refer them out to an obstetrician?

MARCH: Yes, sir.

HARRIS When you refer to other physicians as well?

MARCH: You mean to other specialties, yes, sir.

HARRIS Yes. In fact you -- one specialty that you refer patients out personally, that you refer patients out is Doctor DeVore, correct?

MARCH: Yes.

HARRIS So, in fact, you believe that Doctor Devore is an expert, very good doctor in the field that he practices in?

MARCH: I will tell you that absolutely, if you are talking about congenital anomalies, and mid trimester and late mid second trimester and third trimester ultrasound examinations, Doctor DeVore is absolutely excellent, yes, sir.

HARRIS And so would you say it's probably a fair statement that Doctor DeVore has done more ultrasounds, or reviewed more ultrasounds of pregnant with women than you have?

MARCH: Yes.

http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/March.htm

[caphill]

Originally posted by Lexus


WE have his statement to Det. Owens that I posted with a link and also here's what the Doctor who SAW her on Dec 23rd said as to her due date:

GERAGOS: Okay. The -- did you make a determination at any point as to -- on the 23rd what the expected date of birth was going to be?

TOW-DER: You mean the estimated date of delivery? –

GERAGOS: Yes.

TOW-DER: for the patient? That was already determined previously.

GERAGOS: And what -- and what was it?

TOW-DER: February 10th.

GERAGOS: And did you have another notation in there for February 16th in the file?

TOW-DER: There is a notation in the file.

GERAGOS: And how was the February 16th date calculated?

TOW-DER: That was calculated by her second ultrasound that was done in the office.

GERAGOS: Okay. And that was not something that you did; is that correct?

TOW-DER: No.

There was a notation in the chart but NOT a change of the due date. [/*]


Laci's medical chart is available to view on a site that shows all exhibits. I have seen it many times.

After the 20th week ultrasound Dr. Yip noted the due date of Feb16th in the section on the medical chart for the due date.

Take a look at the chart and see where the due is shown with your own eyes. It is as clear as day that Feb 16th was listed as the due date on the chart.

The chart is a pre printed medical form and has a section for original date due date of Feb 10th done by nurse practitioner who opened up chart on Laci's first visit. There is another section for second due date done by Dr Yip after the 20th week ultrasound and the doctor's analysis of measurements and data from ultrasound.

[caphill]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lexus
Let's look at credentials:

MARCH: Since 1966.

GERAGOS: Okay. And as a doctor for the last whatever number of years that is, the -- have you specialized in any particular area?

MARCH: After my four years of training in obstetrics and gynecology, I took a fellowship in reproductive endocrinology and infertility, which began in 1973, and therefore since that time my practice has been limited to gynecology, reproductive endocrinology, and infertility, and telescopic surgery.

GERAGOS: Okay. Have you ever published anything in these areas?

MARCH: I have published probably about a hundred and ten papers in scientific journals, more than 80 textbook chapters, some videotapes, audiotapes, those kinds of things.

GERAGOS: Okay. Have you ever won any awards or belong to any professional societies?

MARCH: I guess the first award was for valor in Vietnam during my Vietnam service. I've won teaching awards from the University of Southern California when I was on the faculty for 30 years. Full time faculty. And since 1990 to present I have been named as -- in the textbook The Best Doctors In America. At the time of the first edition of that book in 1990, I was the only person in the country named in both reproductive endocrinology and infertility and reproductive surgery.

GERAGOS: What is reproductive endo whatever, I can't pronounce it?

MARCH: Reproductive endocrinology and infertility is a subspecialty of obstetrics and gynecology devoted to -- I guess the fertility part is pretty straightforward to understand. Helping couples who have problems -- both diagnosis and treatment of couples who have problems with fertility. And then the reproductive endocrinology part is the evaluation of hormonal problems, to a small extent male but basically female, and then to correct -- both the diagnosis of those and then to find the correction of these problems. Hormones of pregnancy, hormones of pre-pregnancy, with women with menstrual abnormalities, and, of course, the management of menopausal problems, on the other side of the reproductive years.

GERAGOS: Have you ever testified as an expert in this area?



Let's see: I was the only person in the country named in both reproductive endocrinology and infertility and reproductive surgery.

I guess the fertility part is pretty straightforward to understand. Helping couples who have problems -- both diagnosis and treatment of couples who have problems with fertility. And then the reproductive endocrinology part is the evaluation of hormonal problems, to a small extent male but basically female,

do you see fetal age or fetal development in there???


vs:

DEVORE: In obstetrics and gynecology, which is the profession of caring for women, there are three subspecialties that require special training. And one of those is called maternal-fetal medicine. That is caring for the mother or the fetus that may to be at high risk. And that involves doing ultrasound as one of the main things that we do to evaluate the fetus.

HARRIS: In preparation for this profession did you go to medical school?

DEVORE: Yes, I did.

HARRIS: Where did you go to medical school?

DEVORE: University of Utah Medical School.

HARRIS: Is this a standard program for an M.D.?

DEVORE: Yes. Traditional four-year educational process.

HARRIS: After that what do you do?

DEVORE: After that I then did an internship at Yale University in Connecticut in internal medicine. Then I did a residency program in obstetrics and gynecology for three years at Yale University. Then I did a fellowship in maternal-fetal medicine for two years at Yale University.

HARRIS: This fellowship, what is that?

DEVORE: That is special training that allows you to be certified as a specialist in maternal-fetal medicine. Involves additional training, research, writing papers, for example, learning new material. And then after that is completed, then you sit for the boards for where you have to be board certified. That's the eventual end of the process.



HARRIS Would you say that is -- let's back up to something you said. You said after these women get pregnant, you refer them out to an obstetrician?

MARCH: Yes, sir.

HARRIS When you refer to other physicians as well?

MARCH: You mean to other specialties, yes, sir.

HARRIS Yes. In fact you -- one specialty that you refer patients out personally, that you refer patients out is Doctor DeVore, correct?

MARCH: Yes.

HARRIS So, in fact, you believe that Doctor Devore is an expert, very good doctor in the field that he practices in?

MARCH: I will tell you that absolutely, if you are talking about congenital anomalies, and mid trimester and late mid second trimester and third trimester ultrasound examinations, Doctor DeVore is absolutely excellent, yes, sir.

HARRIS And so would you say it's probably a fair statement that Doctor DeVore has done more ultrasounds, or reviewed more ultrasounds of pregnant with women than you have?

MARCH: Yes.



And your point is????

[caphill]

Originally posted by insighter


I already knew "who". I am asking; what was the contradiction? TIA [/*]
y
Dr. Peterson, Dr Galloway and Dr March contradicted Dr. Devore testimony.

The State hire two expert witnesses to refute the pathologist autopsy testimony of Dr. Peterson.

Dr. Galloway was hired as an expert to refute Dr. Peterson very damaging testimony as to the estimated age of baby. When Dr. Galloway expert findings could not refute Dr. Peterson original report of estimated 9 months full term, the State then hired Dr, Devore to refute Dr. Galloway findings.

Dr. Devore even tried to refute the finding of Dr Yip who was one of the attending Dr to Laci.

If this was designed to confuse the jury, it worked. They totally disregarded the medical and scientific evidence and testimony and focused on what they could understand.

One juror gets on TV and talks about her thoughts on how Laci's bed was made in processing of the evidence to reach a death penalty verdict. That showed her mental capacity to process anything more complicated that how a comforter should be straightened on a bed.

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by caphill

y
Dr. Peterson, Dr Galloway and Dr March contradicted Dr. Devore testimony.

The State hire two expert witnesses to refute the pathologist autopsy testimony of Dr. Peterson.

Dr. Galloway was hired as an expert to refute Dr. Peterson very damaging testimony as to the estimated age of baby. When Dr. Galloway expert findings could not refute Dr. Peterson original report of estimated 9 months full term, the State then hired Dr, Devore to refute Dr. Galloway findings.

*snip for space* [/*]

Where specifically did Dr. Galloway's testimony contradict Devore's? If that were the case, seeing as she was the prosecution witness, if her findings were so contradictory, why in the world did the prosecution even put her on the stand? They called her, they easily could have not called her.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Nightowl


Where specifically did Dr. Galloway's testimony contradict Devore's? If that were the case, seeing as she was the prosecution witness, if her findings were so contradictory, why in the world did the prosecution even put her on the stand? They called her, they easily could have not called her. [/*]



She was hired April 16th to examine the bodies with much public attention. The prosecution couldn't very well hide her.

Her written reports showed the age as 35-36 weeks. Dr. Peterson's estimate was 9 months. Her reports showed that Dr. Peterson 9 month estimate was pretty much correct. Her testimony still didn't get the data the prosecution wanted so they hired Dr Devore to give contradictory testimony to her and Dr. Peterson's testimony.

The prosecution also chose to not call Dr. Boyd Stevens to the stand but Geragos was able to bring in testimony through Grogan of what Dr. Boyd Stevens had told him. Dr. Stevens said the amt of weights the prosecution alledged were tied to Laci would not be enough to sink Laci and she would have traveled.

[caphill]

Originally posted by bookclubfan


<sarcasm> I can't believe they haven't let Scott out from all this so called evidence they come up with daily. Shocked. <sarcasm> [/*]

I have a lightening bolt for you. None of this is new evidence. This was all presented to the jury. They either couldn't understand it or chose to ignore it and listen to their emotional guts rather the evidence.

Dr. Jackson who was apparently not going along with their lynch mentality was ousted as foreman and subsequently removed from the jury.

He stated to the judge he even feared for his safety.

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by caphill




She was hired April 16th to examine the bodies with much public attention. The prosecution couldn't very well hide her.

Her written reports showed the age as 35-36 weeks. Dr. Peterson's estimate was 9 months. Her reports showed that Dr. Peterson 9 month estimate was pretty much correct. Her testimony still didn't get the data the prosecution wanted so they hired Dr Devore to give contradictory testimony to her and Dr. Peterson's testimony.

The prosecution also chose to not call Dr. Boyd Stevens to the stand but Geragos was able to bring in testimony through Grogan of what Dr. Boyd Stevens had told him. Dr. Stevens said the amt of weights the prosecution alledged were tied to Laci would not be enough to sink Laci and she would have traveled. [/*]

What reports are those? Because her report clearly says, 33-38 weeks. The only way that March could change the date of death was to change the conception date (based on when Laci told her friends she was expecting). Absolutely no one was able to exclude 33 weeks, which was the age of Connor on Dec 24. No one. No one at all said "Absolutely not, this fetus is considerably older" Not even the defense's "expert".

[Lexus]

Originally posted by bookclubfan


They've had ample time to prepare and yet they still requested a delay. Someone call the court and find out. You don't have to wait to hear about it on the news.

imo [/*]

The suit was originally filed in 2003. That's 5 years to prepare. Sounds like no one at G&G prepares for anything - remember how they weren't prepared for a guilty verdict. That's poor lawyering in my opinion.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by caphill



Laci's medical chart is available to view on a site that shows all exhibits. I have seen it many times.

After the 20th week ultrasound Dr. Yip noted the due date of Feb16th in the section on the medical chart for the due date.

Take a look at the chart and see where the due is shown with your own eyes. It is as clear as day that Feb 16th was listed as the due date on the chart.

The chart is a pre printed medical form and has a section for original date due date of Feb 10th done by nurse practitioner who opened up chart on Laci's first visit. There is another section for second due date done by Dr Yip after the 20th week ultrasound and the doctor's analysis of measurements and data from ultrasound. [/*]Was the original date crossed out? Even the doctors in the practice said the date remained the same. Where did you get your MD? How do you KNOW what the procedure is in that office? Particularly when they tesifie. that it was a notation, not a change.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by caphill
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lexus
Let's look at credentials:

MARCH: Since 1966.

GERAGOS: Okay. And as a doctor for the last whatever number of years that is, the -- have you specialized in any particular area?

MARCH: After my four years of training in obstetrics and gynecology, I took a fellowship in reproductive endocrinology and infertility, which began in 1973, and therefore since that time my practice has been limited to gynecology, reproductive endocrinology, and infertility, and telescopic surgery.

GERAGOS: Okay. Have you ever published anything in these areas?

MARCH: I have published probably about a hundred and ten papers in scientific journals, more than 80 textbook chapters, some videotapes, audiotapes, those kinds of things.

GERAGOS: Okay. Have you ever won any awards or belong to any professional societies?

MARCH: I guess the first award was for valor in Vietnam during my Vietnam service. I've won teaching awards from the University of Southern California when I was on the faculty for 30 years. Full time faculty. And since 1990 to present I have been named as -- in the textbook The Best Doctors In America. At the time of the first edition of that book in 1990, I was the only person in the country named in both reproductive endocrinology and infertility and reproductive surgery.

GERAGOS: What is reproductive endo whatever, I can't pronounce it?

MARCH: Reproductive endocrinology and infertility is a subspecialty of obstetrics and gynecology devoted to -- I guess the fertility part is pretty straightforward to understand. Helping couples who have problems -- both diagnosis and treatment of couples who have problems with fertility. And then the reproductive endocrinology part is the evaluation of hormonal problems, to a small extent male but basically female, and then to correct -- both the diagnosis of those and then to find the correction of these problems. Hormones of pregnancy, hormones of pre-pregnancy, with women with menstrual abnormalities, and, of course, the management of menopausal problems, on the other side of the reproductive years.

GERAGOS: Have you ever testified as an expert in this area?



Let's see: I was the only person in the country named in both reproductive endocrinology and infertility and reproductive surgery.

I guess the fertility part is pretty straightforward to understand. Helping couples who have problems -- both diagnosis and treatment of couples who have problems with fertility. And then the reproductive endocrinology part is the evaluation of hormonal problems, to a small extent male but basically female,

do you see fetal age or fetal development in there???


vs:

DEVORE: In obstetrics and gynecology, which is the profession of caring for women, there are three subspecialties that require special training. And one of those is called maternal-fetal medicine. That is caring for the mother or the fetus that may to be at high risk. And that involves doing ultrasound as one of the main things that we do to evaluate the fetus.

HARRIS: In preparation for this profession did you go to medical school?

DEVORE: Yes, I did.

HARRIS: Where did you go to medical school?

DEVORE: University of Utah Medical School.

HARRIS: Is this a standard program for an M.D.?

DEVORE: Yes. Traditional four-year educational process.

HARRIS: After that what do you do?

DEVORE: After that I then did an internship at Yale University in Connecticut in internal medicine. Then I did a residency program in obstetrics and gynecology for three years at Yale University. Then I did a fellowship in maternal-fetal medicine for two years at Yale University.

HARRIS: This fellowship, what is that?

DEVORE: That is special training that allows you to be certified as a specialist in maternal-fetal medicine. Involves additional training, research, writing papers, for example, learning new material. And then after that is completed, then you sit for the boards for where you have to be board certified. That's the eventual end of the process.



HARRIS Would you say that is -- let's back up to something you said. You said after these women get pregnant, you refer them out to an obstetrician?

MARCH: Yes, sir.

HARRIS When you refer to other physicians as well?

MARCH: You mean to other specialties, yes, sir.

HARRIS Yes. In fact you -- one specialty that you refer patients out personally, that you refer patients out is Doctor DeVore, correct?

MARCH: Yes.

HARRIS So, in fact, you believe that Doctor Devore is an expert, very good doctor in the field that he practices in?

MARCH: I will tell you that absolutely, if you are talking about congenital anomalies, and mid trimester and late mid second trimester and third trimester ultrasound examinations, Doctor DeVore is absolutely excellent, yes, sir.

HARRIS And so would you say it's probably a fair statement that Doctor DeVore has done more ultrasounds, or reviewed more ultrasounds of pregnant with women than you have?

MARCH: Yes.



And your point is???? [/*]Dr.Martch used Dr. Devore. Dr March has no specialized training in fetal anything. He has no specialty in forensic anthropology either. He's a FERTILITY EXPERT which has NOTHING to do with Conner's age

[Lexus]

Please share with me the EXACT science of date of bith. I have yet to see a baby come EXACTLY when they are due. This is NOT an exact science and every woman who has ever been pregnant KNOWS IT.

They are highly qualified people who gave their EXPERT opinions. Again, where did you gert your M.D. from? You are an expert in whalt sdcience?

[Lexus]

Originally posted by Nightowl


What reports are those? Because her report clearly says, 33-38 weeks. The only way that March could change the date of death was to change the conception date (based on when Laci told her friends she was expecting). Absolutely no one was able to exclude 33 weeks, which was the age of Connor on Dec 24. No one. No one at all said "Absolutely not, this fetus is considerably older" Not even the defense's "expert". [/*]

Dr. P{eterson's GESTATIONAL age does not disagree with Dr. Galloways. GESTational age is different than actual length of pregnancy. Gestational age is higher than actual pregnancy as it is calculated from date of conception, which varies for every woman. That alone means the 9 month figure is off by at LEAST 2 weeks) although that presupposes that date of conception is 2 weeks after the last period, which is not accurate - it is a generalization.

Where did you M.D. come from again?

[caphill]

Originally posted by Nightowl


What reports are those? Because her report clearly says, 33-38 weeks. The only way that March could change the date of death was to change the conception date (based on when Laci told her friends she was expecting). Absolutely no one was able to exclude 33 weeks, which was the age of Connor on Dec 24. No one. No one at all said "Absolutely not, this fetus is considerably older" Not even the defense's "expert". [/*]



Her written data showed 14 different meanurements that ranged from 34 weeks to 40 weeks. She compiled these actual bone measurements into three set of mumbers. The ranged from 35 to 36 weeks. She then put a 2 week window or cushion on the actual data to give a range of 33 to 38.

Dr Devore was the only one who believed he could pin point an actual time and date. The jury chose to believe it was possible to determine the time of death from Dr. Devore putting the femur in a vat of water and do an sonogram measurement.

Dr. Galloway did a hands on measurement of the acutual bones and Dr. Devore sunk his in water and used a sonogram. Beats me as to why he didn't just measure the actual bones.

Dr. Galloway, Dr. Peterson and Dr. March were all pretty much in line with the fetus being at least a week older that the day of Laci's disappearance. That is taking into consideration a cushion of two weeks either way. Out of 4 experts' testimony the jury choses the one that supported the prosecution and ignored the other two prosecution witness and the 1 defense witness.

Wonder why Dr. Devore didn't address the crown to heel length of the baby that 19 0r 19.5 inches. His speciality was abnormal fetal development. He would have known that a 32 week fetus that was already 19 or 19.5 inches would have been off the charts for a fetus that young. The charts show a 36-38 week fetus to range from 19 to 21 inches.

That jury comprised of a number mothers that should have questioned a 7.5 week fetus being that long whether that had any medical knowledge or not.

[bookie]

Originally posted by Lexus


The suit was originally filed in 2003. That's 5 years to prepare. Sounds like no one at G&G prepares for anything - remember how they weren't prepared for a guilty verdict. That's poor lawyering in my opinion. [/*]


We only have Greta's word for who asked for the continuance. We don't know which side asked for it. The Rochas may have requested it since they were denied their claim that the conviction stand for itself.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Lexus


Please share with me the EXACT science of date of bith. I have yet to see a baby come EXACTLY when they are due. This is NOT an exact science and every woman who has ever been pregnant KNOWS IT.

They are highly qualified people who gave their EXPERT opinions. Again, where did you gert your M.D. from? You are an expert in whalt sdcience? [/*]



We are finally in agreement on this issue. There is no exact science of date of birth or exact date of death of a fetus. Dr. Galloway used a 2 week cushion for her actual data because that was correct medical/scientific protocol as she testified.

Dr. Devore was the expert witness who claimed he could pin point actual age of the fetus at its death.

DO you now agree that maybe Dr. Devore claims to his expertise abilities to pin point the age at death flies in the face of exact science and "what every woman who has ever been pregnant knows".

I think you just lost the argument with yourself regarding Dr. Devore testimony and credibility.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by bookie



We only have Greta's word for who asked for the continuance. We don't know which side asked for it. The Rochas may have requested it since they were denied their claim that the conviction stand for itself. [/*]

Whod oes a delay benefit? It doesn't help the Rochas. It just delays the time that Scott will have to fork over any money he gets. Geragos is famous for delay, delay, delay. The Rochas have been ready since the guilty verdict.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by caphill




We are finally in agreement on this issue. There is no exact science of date of birth or exact date of death of a fetus. Dr. Galloway used a 2 week cushion for her actual data because that was correct medical/scientific protocol as she testified.

Dr. Devore was the expert witness who claimed he could pin point actual age of the fetus at its death.

DO you now agree that maybe Dr. Devore claims to his expertise abilities to pin point the age at death flies in the face of exact science and "what every woman who has ever been pregnant knows".

I think you just lost the argument with yourself regarding Dr. Devore testimony and credibility. [/*] Have you never heard of standard of deviation? Try statistics. IIRC Galloway's chart is based on European babies who vary in size from US babiews and that is why there is that deviation.

If Dr. Galloway was hired to refute Dr. Peterson, why did he include her results in the autopsy. I sure wouldn't inclue someone else's information if it didn't agree with mine. The point is that it DID agree with his estimate since GESTATIONAL age is calculated from last menstrual period, not date of conception.

[caphill]

Originally posted by insighter


!LOL!

I am waiting for you to answer my questions CH! [/*]


This is an anonymous message board and you have no rights to my identity or background.

[bookie]

Originally posted by Lexus


Whod oes a delay benefit? It doesn't help the Rochas. It just delays the time that Scott will have to fork over any money he gets. Geragos is famous for delay, delay, delay. The Rochas have been ready since the guilty verdict. [/*]


The Rochas thought the guilty verdict would stand on it's own and probably weren't prepared for a full blown trial. A delay would benefit them in preparing for something they thought wasn't going to happen.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Lexus
Have you never heard of standard of deviation? Try statistics. IIRC Galloway's chart is based on European babies who vary in size from US babiews and that is why there is that deviation.

If Dr. Galloway was hired to refute Dr. Peterson, why did he include her results in the autopsy. I sure wouldn't inclue someone else's information if it didn't agree with mine. The point is that it DID agree with his estimate since GESTATIONAL age is calculated from last menstrual period, not date of conception. [/*]


Maybe you should reread the transcripts. Dr Peterson never tesified that he estimated the 9 month age of the baby on the "calculated last menstrual period, not date of conception.

Firstly he was stuck with his estimated age of the baby as he had listed that on his initial autopsy report when the baby was listed as Baby Doe. At the time he had no idea this was the fetus of Laci Peterson and had no way to know her last menstrual date. His estimate age was based on his visual examination based on size of bone measurements.

He never testified to the anything regarding Laci's date of conception or date of her last period as that would have been out of his range of expertise.

I think you are confusing the different Drs and their studied fields of medical and science.

[caphill]

Originally posted by insighter


Where are you getting the 19 or 19.5 inches from? TIA [/*]


The testimony of Dr. Peterson who gave the CTH measurements.

[bookie]

Originally posted by bookclubfan


I've seen a few people ask this and she will ignore it. We know the answer. No dr. here on this board. No expert either.

mho [/*]


Asking personal information is not allowed. No one has to tell you or anyone who they are, where they are from, what they do for a living or where they got their education.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Lexus
Have you never heard of standard of deviation? Try statistics. IIRC Galloway's chart is based on European babies who vary in size from US babiews and that is why there is that deviation.

If Dr. Galloway was hired to refute Dr. Peterson, why did he include her results in the autopsy. I sure wouldn't inclue someone else's information if it didn't agree with mine. The point is that it DID agree with his estimate since GESTATIONAL age is calculated from last menstrual period, not date of conception. [/*]


Your recall is incorrect. Dr Galloway used referenced guides from Fazekas and Kosa( Hungarian published) and Sherwood written in 2001(US published data).

If you would read the testimony that has been posted here time and again she would see this testimony. Both references were used and she showed her findings using both references.

[caphill]

Originally posted by caphill




We are finally in agreement on this issue. There is no exact science of date of birth or exact date of death of a fetus. Dr. Galloway used a 2 week cushion for her actual data because that was correct medical/scientific protocol as she testified.

Dr. Devore was the expert witness who claimed he could pin point actual age of the fetus at its death.

DO you now agree that maybe Dr. Devore claims to his expertise abilities to pin point the age at death flies in the face of exact science and "what every woman who has ever been pregnant knows".

I think you just lost the argument with yourself regarding Dr. Devore testimony and credibility. [/*]


No one wanted to address my question regarding Dr. Devore's ability to exactly pin point the age of the baby at death.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Lexus
Was the original date crossed out? Even the doctors in the practice said the date remained the same. Where did you get your MD? How do you KNOW what the procedure is in that office? Particularly when they tesifie. that it was a notation, not a change. [/*]

Lexus, if you would take the time to look at the medical chart that is available for public viewing you would see for yourself what the medical chart looks like.

It is a standard pre printed form that has an area for the original due that was listed by the nurse practitioner when whe opened the chart on Laci's first visit.

There is another area for the Dr is fill in when he completed his ultrasound after 20 weeks. It after the analysis of the the Sept 24th untrsound that the Dr filled in the due date section. It is as a fact that Feb 16th due date is on her chart.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by bookclubfan


I can't believe they are still in business due to bad lawyering. Why would they need to delay if the NGs have evidence that will free Scott or so they have claimed for years? Well? Why hasn't it been used already?

imo [/*]

Excellent point. It is beign held for the appeal. If I had real evidence that would exhonerate someone, I would call Greta, Nancy and EVERY talk show hose I could. They would get it out there and the public outcry would get Scott freed. Instead, they sit on it for 8-11 years until the appeal. Makes no sense.

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by caphill

Her written data showed 14 different meanurements that . [/*]

What tests exactly did Dr. Devore do/not do? And why do you think measuring a bone using an ultrasound probe is inaccurate, particularly when he was comparing the results to previous ultrasounds of Connor?

The "cushion" is based on standard deviations. Because, obviously, not all babies are the same size when they are born. A really big baby at 33 weeks may well have larger measurements than a small baby at 35 weeks. So Dr. Galloway included ages within 1 standard deviation of the measurements she obtained. A +/- 1 standard deviation will include ~67 percent of the population. It covers the majority. BUT.... it does NOT include ~33%. So out of 100 babies at a particular age, about 67 will have measurements that fall within that range and about 33 will have measurements that are higher or lower.

Dr. Devore's data was based on Connor's previous ultrasound, it was not just statistically saying "babies of x age have a femur length of y cm with a SD of z cm".

And why again was Garagos not able to find one single expert that could testify dispute the prosecutions data? Just one person, get him/her up there and give a solid scientifically defendable reason showing why Connor had to have been older than Dec 24 at death?

[Lexus]

Originally posted by Nightowl

[/*]

Not to mention that Dr. Devore did not have Conner to do a crown/rump measurement. id you not read Dr. Galloway's statement about measurements on dead bodies being incorrect? How else could he have compared this measurement to a sonogram measurement taken in September. He had to simulate a sonogram measurement. In September, Conner was in amniotic (fluid) sac when that measurement was taken.

Dr March never talked to Laci's doctors, and felt a conversation at a shower was enough to pinpoinst conception. No wonder he imploded.

Crown/rump measurements taken in the womb are not 100% accurage either. They are done by feeling the baby through the abdomen/fat/uterus.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Nightowl


What tests exactly did Dr. Devore do/not do? And why do you [/*]


There were 3 experts on the stand that testified the baby's estimated age was at least a week older than the day Laci disappeared.

If the jury ignored all the expert testimony except the one that supported what the prosecution wanted, what difference would it make how many more testified.

Geragos wasn't trying to dispute what Dr. Peterson and Dr. Galloway had to say since both of them supported the evidence that the baby lived at least a week after the abduction. Those 2 prosecution witnesses and his 1 witness all disputed Dr. Devore.

[caphill]

Originally posted by Lexus


Not to mention that Dr. Devore did no thave Conner to do a crown/rump measurement. How else could he have compared this measurement to a sonogram measurement taken in September. He had to simulate a sonogram measurement. In September, Conner was in amniotic (fluid) sac when that measurement was taken.

Dr March never talked to Laci's doctors, and felt a conversation at a shower was enough to pinpoinst conception. No wonder he imploded. [/*]

DeVore had the actual femur bone.

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


It was a hate verdict, hence the conviction.

mho [/*]

I can't see how it could have been. The prosecution presented a TON of circumstantial evidence that the defense simply couldn't explain away. The data, in particular, Dr. Devore's, supported that Connor was not alive after Laci disappeared. The search in the bay showed what was almost certainly Laci's body pretty early on in the investigation. Nothing emotional at all about it. 12 people listened to the evidence, deliberated and convicted the murderer.

:seeya:

[tiny paw-prints]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


It was a hate verdict, hence the conviction.

mho [/*]

The crime of murdering two people was inspired from the hateful disposition of ONE person, Scott Lee Peterson.

His hateful disposition and his crime of murder was judged by 12 jurors who rightfully convicted him.

:rose: For Laci and Baby Conner.

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


It was a hate verdict.

Scott did not murder Laci and Conner. Scott is innocent

For Laci, Conner, Scott, Jackie, and Lee :rose:

mho [/*]

Scott is guilty of the murder of his wife and unborn son.

mho (and the verdict reached by a jury of 12, which is what counts)

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Do you think the jurors will admit it was hate verdict? I don't think so.

The lack of evidence and Conner's estimated 9 month gestational exonerates Scott. It is not a matter of "wanting" him to be innocent, he is innocent.

I don't need sources to tell me it was a hate verdict. I know hate when I see it..and that interview with the juirors taunting Scott with the verdict shows how much they hate him.

His conviction is not the end of the story. It isn't over until the last appeal.

MHO [/*]

psssst.... NO ONE estimated Connor's age as 9 months. Not even close. Not even the defense expert.

There are some verdicts that get overturned. MOO, this one never will. If by some quirk of fate there is a retrial, the outcome will be the same, based on the evidence. When the civil trial comes out, there's not going to be any ground breaking presentation of Connor's age. Just wait and see if I'm wrong.

[tiny paw-prints]

Originally posted by mcannie1965




It is the appeals court who will have the last say on the verdict, not the 12 jurors.

MHO [/*]

Is Geragos going to build another boat with props for the appeals court?

When the appeals court returns with their unfavorable decision, then what are you going to say? A hate decision?

[joolz]

Originally posted by mcannie1965




It is the appeals court who will have the last say on the verdict, not the 12 jurors.

MHO [/*]

And will that be a hate verdict too?

[caphill]

Originally posted by AngelWings


Bookie what are you talking about? Caphill claims to do autopsy's. If someone makes that claim, for example, why can't they be questioned? Doesn't seem very fair now, does it?

By the way, I don't think anyone believes it.:D [/*]


Support your claim that I ever said I was a pathologist.

[Lexus]

I saw the press conference after the trial and I did not detect anay hate in the jurors there - sthey seemed very calm and colledcted, not full of rage and hate.

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


psssst....yes Dr. Brian Peterson did! Its listed in the autopsy findings report!
mho [/*]

Such a shame that the finger in the ear theory doesn't work in court. 33 to 38 weeks was in the report. 33 weeks.... exactly the age of Conner on Dec 24. Deny, deny, deny it as much as you want, it doesn't change. :)

[bookie]

Originally posted by SlickLime
IIRC, the size of Conner was larger than the amniotic sac. Anyone else remember this?

I recall being a bit shocked at the info.

It's been a long time, my memory could be clouded. [/*]


Yes. Conner measured 32 centimeters from crown to rump and Laci's uterus measured 23.


PETERSON: Sure. The uterus, in the first place, from the lowest portion of the uterus where it connects to the vagina, to the uppermost portion, the fundus, measured 23 centimeters.




PETERSON: The crown-rump length, from my report here, was 32 centimeters.


http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Transcripts/PetersonBrian-Trial.htm

[bookie]

Originally posted by insighter


What is the significant difference? TIA [/*]


The uterus size should have matched the fetus size. That was also in testimony but I can't remember which doctor discussed it.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by mcannie1965
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL BELMESSIERI, PETERSON JUROR: Scott came in with a great big smile on his face, laughing. It was just another day in paradise for Scott, another day that he had to go through the motions. But he‘s on his way home, Scott figures. Well, guess what, Scotty...

RICHELLE NICE, PETERSON JUROR: San Quentin‘s your new home!

BELMESSIERI: And it‘s illegal to kill your wife and child in California!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7220109/

Richell Nice called Scott an a-hole in an interview outside the courthouse right after the verdict. She leaned over the mike to shout it in the microphone.

If this isn't hate, what must hate be!? They taunted him with the verdict! This video will be an issue in the appellate court. I think it should be an issue in the civil trial.

mho [/*]Who wouldn't hate what Scott did?

[caphill]

Originally posted by insighter


Why, in this particular case, should have the size of the uterus matched the fetus size? Again, what is the significant difference of 32 cm and 23 cm; is there any in this particular case? TIA [/*]

If the baby won't fit, you must acquit.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by mcannie1965




It is the appeals court who will have the last say on the verdict, not the 12 jurors.

MHO [/*]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.
You know the Motorcycle chop shop has produce the arrest of 3 LE officers. One court bailiff,that was,by the way, the bailiff that was in the court room during Scott`s trial, one medical retired LE officer who is still in jail with his son,because "he and his son are a danger to the community" and a CHP officer.
This is just the tip of the iceberg,wait till they start rolling on each other and lets see just how high this crime family goes. Look for more LE officers to come tumbling down.
Have you ever watched something like this come down? Read up on the Det. of Corrections in Florida where it went all the way to the TOP man appointed by our governor. He is now serving time in the Federal prison. It all started at the bottom with officers selling steroids and ended up with corruption by the Secretary of Correction. He is the top dog.
For anyone who thinks this is just a little thing,you are in for a HUGH surprise.When the FBI closes this case,that has been investigated for 10 years with agents placed inside these motorcycle gangs.When LE is involved it is serious chit.
Make light of it,laugh but just remember, HI_CYCLE told you.
New trial,new evidence= Scott is Innocent.;)

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by bookclubfan
Oh my, that is some active imagination.

:lol: [/*]
Since you read maybe you should read the links I posted awhile back. Then form your opinion. I doubt those still unable to get bond is laughing with you.:read:

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by bookie



The uterus size should have matched the fetus size. That was also in testimony but I can't remember which doctor discussed it. [/*]

Please explain how much of Laci's uterus was abraded away (i.e. MISSING) after being 4 months at the bottom of the bay?

TIA

[HI_CYCLE]

http://www.modbee.com/local/story/376085.html

Judge to consider whether Road Dog Cycle owner's son should be released
New judge to consider arguments by prosecution against Brent Holloway

By EMILIE RAGUSO
eraguso@modbee.com

last updated: July 30, 2008 04:47:33 AM


Judge to consider whether Road Dog Cycle owner's son should be released

Suspect to remain jailed in Road Dog Cycle case

Motorcycle shop owner, sheriff's captain among 11 arrested in federal probeBrent Holloway will be held in custody until a federal judge can take a second look at whether he should be released, according to court documents.

Holloway was ordered released on house arrest with electronic monitoring last week, but prosecutors requested a different judge to reconsider the decision. Magistrate Judge Oliver W. Wanger of the U.S. District Court in Fresno set Holloway's next hearing for Thursday at 9 a.m.

Authorities contend that Holloway and his father ran a racketeering enterprise out of Road Dog Cycle in Denair. A grand jury indicted the Holloways and 11 others earlier this month on charges related to suspected illegal operations at the shop going back to 1997.

Robert Holloway III, 60, of Turlock was denied a request for release last week.

A motion prosecutors filed to support their argument that Brent Holloway should remain in custody outlines in more detail the allegations about operations at Road Dog.

Authorities said Robert Holloway ran what they have termed the "Holloway criminal enterprise" and that Brent Holloway, who lives in Modesto, was his second-in-command
:read:

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by bookclubfan
Oh my, that is some active imagination.

:lol: [/*]

They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at Columbus. But remember, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. - Sagan

[Lexus]

Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
Notice the dates of this bust. I said new information.:read: He has another appeal coming up.
My money says there will be NO CIVIL suite trial. Lets see who is right.:read: [/*]

I'll take that bet. There ios NOTHING that can stop the Rochas from filing a law suit. He still hasns't had it first appeal and no attorney has been appointed for it. So what is "another" appeal when he hasn't even had the first one and is nowhere close to having it.

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by mcannie1965



Posting false allegations doesn;t make it true. Dr. Peterson testified his ultimate conclusioln is he couldn't rule out live birth. I never said anything about "Uterus horns!" I never said Ron Grantski "committed murder!" I never said Amber Frey "committed' murder!"

MHO [/*]

Yes, there wasn't enough left of the poor kid to do a lot of those tests for live birth. He was too badly decomposed.

Peterson couldn't rule out alien abduction either. The fact that you can't rule something out doesn't make it likely.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/376085.html

Judge to consider whether Road Dog Cycle owner's son should be released
New judge to consider arguments by prosecution against Brent Holloway

By EMILIE RAGUSO
eraguso@modbee.com

last updated: July 30, 2008 04:47:33 AM


Judge to consider whether Road Dog Cycle owner's son should be released

Suspect to remain jailed in Road Dog Cycle case

Motorcycle shop owner, sheriff's captain among 11 arrested in federal probeBrent Holloway will be held in custody until a federal judge can take a second look at whether he should be released, according to court documents.

Holloway was ordered released on house arrest with electronic monitoring last week, but prosecutors requested a different judge to reconsider the decision. Magistrate Judge Oliver W. Wanger of the U.S. District Court in Fresno set Holloway's next hearing for Thursday at 9 a.m.

Authorities contend that Holloway and his father ran a racketeering enterprise out of Road Dog Cycle in Denair. A grand jury indicted the Holloways and 11 others earlier this month on charges related to suspected illegal operations at the shop going back to 1997.

Robert Holloway III, 60, of Turlock was denied a request for release last week.

A motion prosecutors filed to support their argument that Brent Holloway should remain in custody outlines in more detail the allegations about operations at Road Dog.

Authorities said Robert Holloway ran what they have termed the "Holloway criminal enterprise" and that Brent Holloway, who lives in Modesto, was his second-in-command
:read: [/*]

What is the connection of this to the Peterson trial. You are wayyy off topic

[Nightowl]

Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
Notice the dates of this bust. I said new information.:read: He has another appeal coming up.
My money says there will be NO CIVIL suite trial. Lets see who is right.:read: [/*]

How much money ya got, big talker?

[Lexus]

Originally posted by SlickLime
IIRC, the size of Conner was larger than the amniotic sac. Anyone else remember this?

I recall being a bit shocked at the info.

It's been a long time, my memory could be clouded. [/*]

How do you know the size of the amniotic sac. Was it found?

[HI_CYCLE]

http://media.modbee.com/smedia/2008/07/29/11/Revocation_of_bond_motion.source.prod_affiliate.11 .pdf
This is a must to read,book,you will love this one.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by Lexus


What is the connection of this to the Peterson trial. You are wayyy off topic [/*]
If you read you will know there is corruption in the Peterson trial that connects to this bust.
Try reading.:read:

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by Nightowl


How much money ya got, big talker? [/*]
I will guess as much as you. Now this is just a guess.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by bookclubfan
Calm yourself. You should take your own advice. Misinformation is all you NGs post or should I say "copy" it from the sii board. Read my post again. The NGs...you are an NG are you not? imo


:rolleyes: [/*] See I know you are NOT interested in facts,you have not had time to read my PDF file link. Tells a story of it`s own.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by bookclubfan
How can they push back a civil trial if there isn't going to be a civil trial?

Scott Peterson trial for wrongful death lawsuit pushed back

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The civil trial had been scheduled to start on July 8, but a Stanislaus County Superior Court judge pushed the date back Monday after attorneys filed a motion for delay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_9675564

:read: [/*]
It can be dropped at any time and it will.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Calm yourself. You should take your own advice. You've posted misinformation:

Get your facts straight: SII no longer exists! It has been taken down. :rolleyes:

mho [/*]
Does this tell you that the SIG are in the dark about what is really going on? LMBO
They really need to catch up if they are going to discuss this case.They must think that the SII,which I have never read,is the only place this case is being discussed and researched. Surprise,Surprise.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by bookclubfan
:rolleyes: Please take your delusional thinking elsewhere. We are trying to have an intellegent discussion. Making up things as you always do hi cycle has never resulted in reality. Never worked on other boards. What makes you think it would work here?

Ooh curruption and a big surprise, can't wait...NOT. Puleeez, that game is so old. [/*]
Oh,I see, lets talk about the old information of deceit and CE. NOPE,too much new information. Deal with it.hammer
Come out of the dark,your on SDI stated many times in the past about the FBI investigating,ahh,yes they were and Scott is the beneficiary of it.:lol:

[Lexus]

Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
http://media.modbee.com/smedia/2008/07/29/11/Revocation_of_bond_motion.source.prod_affiliate.11 .pdf
This is a must to read,book,you will love this one. [/*]

I am not about to waste my time reading about crimes committed by people who were never involved in the Peterson case. This chop shop isn't even IN Modesto. It's in Denair which is several cities away.

I still don't see the connection to the Peterson case. This is not even a State of CA case. This is a Federal case. Was Scott a member of a motorcycle gang? I don't recall his evening owning a motorcycle.

This is totally off topic on this thread

[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

[Lexus]

Originally posted by bookclubfan
Thanks Lexus. Very informative.

It is going nowhere fast just like Scott.


:seeya: [/*]

And that is NOT the appeal where new evidence can be introduced. This is just the judicial review appeal to make sure that all the i's are dottted and the t's are crossed.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by Lexus


I am not about to waste my time reading about crimes committed by people who were never involved in the Peterson case. This chop shop isn't even IN Modesto. It's in Denair which is several cities away.

I still don't see the connection to the Peterson case. This is not even a State of CA case. This is a Federal case. Was Scott a member of a motorcycle gang? I don't recall his evening owning a motorcycle.

This is totally off topic on this thread [/*]If you want to know what is going on READ IT. The owner of the shops son lives in Modesto and is a MAIN player. The ex deputy lives in Modesto,READ, the Bailiff lives in MODESTO,READ. Yes it has a lot to do with Scott.
NO it was Sharon and Ron that rode with these cyclist. Don`t expect me to explain things to you unless you can`t read. Get it??
I post the info,it is links to legitimate newspapers and legitimate court files. Can`t call it mis information. If you want to stick your head in the sand,that is your right.Can`t help you.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


But jurors hatred of Scott makes it a "hate" verdict.

mho [/*]Most people hate murder, it is too be expected.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


Fact: If the Petersons have information that would help Scott, they wouldn't put in on a message board! How do I know this? It's not on a message board, is it? :read:

mho [/*]:beer: LMBO

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by bookclubfan
:rolleyes: Please take your delusional thinking elsewhere. We are trying to have an intellegent discussion. Making up things as you always do hi cycle has never resulted in reality. Never worked on other boards. What makes you think it would work here?

Ooh curruption and a big surprise, can't wait...NOT. Puleeez, that game is so old. [/*]Wasting your energy on sending me private messages,we have a deny button and I use it.:lol:

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by bookclubfan
Fact: If anyone had any information that would help Scott. They sure wouldn't be chiming about it on message boards and not bring it forth to anyone. You wouldn't have to wait till his appeal which hasn't even been filed yet. No one wants to be the hero and collect the reward money? So all this talk about Scott being innocent and having info to prove it is for what? Makes no sense.

jmo [/*]The message board is NOT the place to bring it. All information is going to the right place.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by bookclubfan
I was saying hi to you hi cycle. My bad for not recognizing you sooner. You're a hoot. How is cougar mom?

:seeya: [/*]I hope she is OK RPD.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by bookclubfan


Oh please. The Peterson's would have been screaming from the roof tops a long time ago and would be using to free their son. You don't much apparently. It is no secret that there is NONE, NADDA, NO EVIDENCE that is being withheld by anyone in this case for the future. That would be stupid, imo. Don't play that game with me to make it seem like you have info that you don't. You were caught at that a long time ago. Sheeesh.

Also in the interest of space. This was not a hate verdict. That is a bold face lie. No one is believing you no matter how many times you keep repeating the same lies. It won't make it true. Give it a rest already.

Do tell, are you going to be at the civil trial? I'd love to meet you and see how you use all that stuff you post in an attempt to prove Scott innocent.

moo



:rolleyes: [/*]Flying to Cali? Don`t worry,it will be dropped before it gets to court.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by bookclubfan
Oh you mean the stuff you posted? Stuff not related to this case atll. Scott should be let out of jail right away. Can't believe it isn't being used.
<sarcasm>

No information has been brought forth. Get a grip on reality.

jmo



:lol: [/*]Come out,come out,where ever your at. Do you really believe that Scott`s lawyers and yes he does have them, have been sitting on their azzes since his trial? You are in the dark.

[Stuy]

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.
You know the Motorcycle chop shop has produce the arrest of 3 LE officers. One court bailiff,that was,by the way, the bailiff that was in the court room during Scott`s trial, one medical retired LE officer who is still in jail with his son,because "he and his son are a danger to the community" and a CHP officer.
This is just the tip of the iceberg,wait till they start rolling on each other and lets see just how high this crime family goes. Look for more LE officers to come tumbling down.
Have you ever watched something like this come down? Read up on the Det. of Corrections in Florida where it went all the way to the TOP man appointed by our governor. He is now serving time in the Federal prison. It all started at the bottom with officers selling steroids and ended up with corruption by the Secretary of Correction. He is the top dog.
For anyone who thinks this is just a little thing,you are in for a HUGH surprise.When the FBI closes this case,that has been investigated for 10 years with agents placed inside these motorcycle gangs.When LE is involved it is serious chit.
Make light of it,laugh but just remember, HI_CYCLE told you.
New trial,new evidence= Scott is Innocent.;) [/*]

Are you sure that the bailiff was in the court room for the trial? The trial was held in Redwood City so are you saying the bailiff worked their?

[Stuy]

Do Ron and Sharon actually own motorcycles?

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by bookclubfan


If you read the whole thing, not just a small tidbit the poster provided, there was no hate. Disgust is more like it. It is disgusting Scott murdered his wife and his baby, conner. Sure Scott's evil behavior in the court room was outted. The jurors were entiled to have their say just like they do in any other case. There was no hate. Once again making things up that doesn't exist doesn't help a murderer on death row. This lie about the jury will have no affect on his appeal nor his civil case. They were perfectly within their rights. NEXT dead horse to beat.

If you want to bring up hate mcannie. How about all the hate posted by the NGs? How about the hateful messages on the Laci memorial book? How about the hate from Lee Peterson? How about hate toward's Amber and Ron G? Hate towards Brocchini? The Judge? Did I leave anyone out? Nancy Grace? Can't have it both ways.

jmo

:rolleyes: [/*]Clearly, most people would hate a double murder especially where such trust was involved. How could any sane juror not hate the murder of two innocents?

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by Stuy


Are you sure that the bailiff was in the court room for the trial? The trial was held in Redwood City so are you saying the bailiff worked their? [/*]Sorry he was in the court room with the original judge,who presided over Scott`s case. He had a heart attack in his office and this bailiff was in the office when it happened.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
If you want to know what is going on READ IT. The owner of the shops son lives in Modesto and is a MAIN player. The ex deputy lives in Modesto,READ, the Bailiff lives in MODESTO,READ. Yes it has a lot to do with Scott.
NO it was Sharon and Ron that rode with these cyclist. Don`t expect me to explain things to you unless you can`t read. Get it??
I post the info,it is links to legitimate newspapers and legitimate court files. Can`t call it mis information. If you want to stick your head in the sand,that is your right.Can`t help you. [/*]

Sharon and Ron rode with these cyclist? I don't think so. Sharon DID go on the MEMORIAL Ride for Laci but this shop had nothing to do with it. Sharon is NOT a motorcycle rider and neither is Ron.
They certainly do not belont to any motorcycle gangs.

http://www.lacipetersonmemorial.com/

It's Mirchells that has always been involved with the Memorial. The Mitchell famaily is well known and respected in this area - in fact, there is a Mitchell Road in Ceres (a main street) named after the family.

So take your gang garbage and put it in the toilet where it belongs.

Modesto is a city of over 200,000. What makes you think that Scott or Laci would have had anything to do with any of these people. Did their names come up in the FBI investigation? Not according to the documents that you posted.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by Stuy
Do Ron and Sharon actually own motorcycles? [/*] I have know idea but if you look on the family Laci board you will see where they ride. Also the yearly Motorcycle fund raising has been canceled for this year. Wonder why? Could it be because of the arrests by the FBI?

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by Lexus


Sharon and Ron rode with these cyclist? I don't think so. Sharon DID go on the MEMORIAL Ride for Laci but this shop had nothing to do with it. Sharon is NOT a motorcycle rider and neither is Ron.
They certainly do not belont to any motorcycle gangs.

http://www.lacipetersonmemorial.com/

It's Mirchells that has always been involved with the Memorial. The Mitchell famaily is well known and respected in this area - in fact, there is a Mitchell Road in Ceres (a main street) named after the family.

So take your gang garbage and put it in the toilet where it belongs.

Modesto is a city of over 200,000. What makes you think that Scott or Laci would have had anything to do with any of these people. Did their names come up in the FBI investigation? Not according to the documents that you posted. [/*]I take it you have NOT read all the info available including the PDF file link I posted,so how can you discuss it.:seeya:

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by mcannie1965


What most people hate, is not a legal issue. A jurys' hatred for a defendant is a legal issue.

mho [/*]Hatred for murder may be an issue in every murder case, it is to be expected. How many people love murder? I hope very few.


MOO

[Stuy]

Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
I have know idea but if you look on the family Laci board you will see where they ride. Also the yearly Motorcycle fund raising has been canceled for this year. Wonder why? Could it be because of the arrests by the FBI? [/*]

I heard the reason the event was cancelled this year was because Ron and Sharon had to go to Oregon to attend the funeral for Darrin Grantski.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
I have know idea but if you look on the family Laci board you will see where they ride. Also the yearly Motorcycle fund raising has been canceled for this year. Wonder why? Could it be because of the arrests by the FBI? [/*]Too smoky!

[Lexus]

Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/376085.html

Judge to consider whether Road Dog Cycle owner's son should be released
New judge to consider arguments by prosecution against Brent Holloway

By EMILIE RAGUSO
eraguso@modbee.com

last updated: July 30, 2008 04:47:33 AM


Judge to consider whether Road Dog Cycle owner's son should be released

Suspect to remain jailed in Road Dog Cycle case

Motorcycle shop owner, sheriff's captain among 11 arrested in federal probeBrent Holloway will be held in custody until a federal judge can take a second look at whether he should be released, according to court documents.

Holloway was ordered released on house arrest with electronic monitoring last week, but prosecutors requested a different judge to reconsider the decision. Magistrate Judge Oliver W. Wanger of the U.S. District Court in Fresno set Holloway's next hearing for Thursday at 9 a.m.

Authorities contend that Holloway and his father ran a racketeering enterprise out of Road Dog Cycle in Denair. A grand jury indicted the Holloways and 11 others earlier this month on charges related to suspected illegal operations at the shop going back to 1997.

Robert Holloway III, 60, of Turlock was denied a request for release last week.

A motion prosecutors filed to support their argument that Brent Holloway should remain in custody outlines in more detail the allegations about operations at Road Dog.

Authorities said Robert Holloway ran what they have termed the "Holloway criminal enterprise" and that Brent Holloway, who lives in Modesto, was his second-in-command
:read: [/*]

None of these players are involved in anything to do with Scott and/or Laci Peterson. They don't even live close to the old Peterson residence. They worked in Denair which is a couple of towns away. The closed is the baliff who has worked for Judge Cordova for the past FEW years - and Cordova was a witness for the defense so, he must be connected. It is NOT surprising that most of these people lived in Modesto - it IS the county seat and the largest city in the county.

Better luck next time on finding something

[Lexus]

Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
I take it you have NOT read all the info available including the PDF file link I posted,so how can you discuss it.:seeya: [/*]

I read it and you proved no link to Laci's murder that I can find. As for Laci's family "riding," many people ride motorcycles. Laci's IMMEDIATE family does not. Sharon rode ON THE BACK of a second cousin's cycle.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
Sorry he was in the court room with the original judge,who presided over Scott`s case. He had a heart attack in his office

and this bailiff was in the office when it happened. [/*]

Link please. The original judge was Giurilani (sic) and he is still alive and well.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by Lexus


Sharon and Ron rode with these cyclist? I don't think so. Sharon DID go on the MEMORIAL Ride for Laci but this shop had nothing to do with it. Sharon is NOT a motorcycle rider and neither is Ron.
They certainly do not belont to any motorcycle gangs.

http://www.lacipetersonmemorial.com/

It's Mirchells that has always been involved with the Memorial. The Mitchell famaily is well known and respected in this area - in fact, there is a Mitchell Road in Ceres (a main street) named after the family.

So take your gang garbage and put it in the toilet where it belongs.

Modesto is a city of over 200,000. What makes you think that Scott or Laci would have had anything to do with any of these people. Did their names come up in the FBI investigation? Not according to the documents that you posted. [/*]Where did I suggest Laci or Scott had anything to do with any of these people??? No I do NOT think they did.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by Stuy


I heard the reason the event was cancelled this year was because Ron and Sharon had to go to Oregon to attend the funeral for Darrin Grantski. [/*]I wish you would go to your source and find out where they got their information. The only thing I know is the funeral home in Oregon listed in research denies knowledge of Darrin Grantski. Maybe you could post more info. TIA

[Lexus]

Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
I wish you would go to your source and find out where they got their information. The only thing I know is the funeral home in Oregon listed in research denies knowledge of Darrin Grantski. Maybe you could post more info. TIA [/*]

I fail to see what Darrin Grantski has to do with teh Scott Peterson case. He lived in a different state with his mother.
True, he was the son of Ron Grantski, but that dpes not make him a player in this case.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by Lexus


None of these players are involved in anything to do with Scott and/or Laci Peterson. They don't even live close to the old Peterson residence. They worked in Denair which is a couple of towns away. The closed is the baliff who has worked for Judge Cordova for the past FEW years - and Cordova was a witness for the defense so, he must be connected. It is NOT surprising that most of these people lived in Modesto - it IS the county seat and the largest city in the county.

Better luck next time on finding something [/*]You KNOW nothing about these people and you are right,Scott or Laci knew none of them. Discussion on my end is over for today.

[Lexus]

Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
Where did I suggest Laci or Scott had anything to do with any of these people??? No I do NOT think they did. [/*]

Then why are you posting it on the Scott Peterson Civil Trial Thread - you are off topic and I think that's against TOS

[Lexus]

Originally posted by HI_CYCLE
I wish you would go to your source and find out where they got their information. The only thing I know is the funeral home in Oregon listed in research denies knowledge of Darrin Grantski. Maybe you could post more info. TIA [/*]

Gee, do you think it mighyt be because the memorial service wasn't held there?

[caphill]

Originally posted by Lexus


Gee, do you think it mighyt be because the memorial service wasn't held there? [/*]


Where was it held?

[Lexus]

Originally posted by SlickLime


9cm = 3.5"

JMO, Conner continued to grow outside the uterus. [/*]

WE do not know how much was abraded away on her uterus AND the crown rump measurement is made on a curve, and the length of the uterus would not be after the fetus was expelled. We are comparing diameter and circumference imo Or are you saying that Dr. Peterson blew air into Laci's uterus to get a measurment. If you are going by the crown/rump measurement at the last doctor's visit, that was taken through the abdomen, uterus wall, fat and muscle so how accurate can it be?

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by mcannie1965



No, it is not an issue in every murder case. It is not to be expected. A verdict should not be based on "hatred," it should be based n the evidence or lack of.

In the case of Scott, however, there was no evidence to convict Scott. It is all a half baked theory, speculation, and supposition. If the jury hadn't hated Scott, they wouldn't have bought into a no evidence case. They were blinded by hate, IMO.


mho [/*]They were not blinded. They saw through the dark glass of evil.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by Lexus


I fail to see what Darrin Grantski has to do with teh Scott Peterson case. He lived in a different state with his mother.
True, he was the son of Ron Grantski, but that dpes not make him a player in this case. [/*]He didn't always live in a different state but there is no evidence he had anything to do with the case.

[HI_CYCLE]

Originally posted by Lexus


Then why are you posting it on the Scott Peterson Civil Trial Thread - you are off topic and I think that's against TOS [/*]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?

[bookie]

Originally posted by insighter


Why, in this particular case, should have the size of the uterus matched the fetus size? Again, what is the significant difference of 32 cm and 23 cm; is there any in this particular case? TIA [/*]



I didn't say just this particular case. I said the uterus should be the same size as the fetus. I assumed it would be understood that that meant all uteruses and not just Laci's.

[bookie]

Originally posted by Nightowl


Please explain how much of Laci's uterus was abraded away (i.e. MISSING) after being 4 months at the bottom of the bay?

TIA [/*]


None according to Dr Peterson.