Friday, February 29, 2008

The Prosecutor's Case .. continued

Let's talk about the autopsy. The cause of death in this case could not be determined. And that's a fact. You know, the sea doesn't give up its secrets very easily.

And yet we are supposed to believe the impossible – that both bodies were given up by the sea within 24 hours but in two widely spaced locations. That cannot be believed.

And simply because someone is a good murderer and is able the hide the body for a long period of time doesn't mean they get off. You don't get a free pass for being a clever murderer.

But it's a fact that these bodies were too decomposed for the pathologist to tell us what, what happened to them.

Cause of death is not an element of this crime. The elements of this crime are somebody, a person, here Laci and Conner, both under the law considered people, even though Conner was a fetus, were killed unlawfully, done with malice aforethought. There was a murder, and I'll talk about this later, but if it's done with premeditation, it's first degree murder.

I'll talk about premeditation. You hear that all the time. Probably hear it on TV. It's not some big secret or, you know, some magical legal term. It's just that somebody stopped and thought about what they were doing. That's it.

You can premeditation in the blink of an eye, if you want to. Just that somebody, instead of just killing, somebody actually said: I'm going to kill; I've made the decision to kill.

That's what premeditation means.

The example I frequently use, it's a little silly but it makes the point, is when you come up to a stop sign, or not a stop sign, but a streetlight and the light's red. And you walk up to it and you stop and see the light's red, so you acknowledge that it's red, and you say, You know what, I'm going to go ahead and cross the street anyway, and you start crossing.

Well, you just made a premeditation jaywalking in the street. That's all it means. It just means you stop and think about or you acknowledge what, what you're about to do.

And yet with no time, place, method or means of death how can you assume premeditation?

So you heard, as I went through that definition, cause of death is not an element. And, you know, people kill and the cause of death is not determined all the time. Here these bones were basically skeletonized. You heard that there was some fatty tissue that had turned. Of course, Laci was missing limbs and, and parts of her. And I hate to say this, but, but some jurors even kind of wonder Well, you need the whole person to find, to find someone guilty of murder.

No, that's not an element either. Doesn't say you have to have recover the entire person, just that you proved that somebody had been killed. Clearly that was done here.

Laci had been in a marine environment for three to six months. That was Dr. Galloway's determination from her analysis, which, of course, fits the facts perfectly here because she went, the defendant killed her on December 24th.

Dr Galloway is wrong. A human body can be reduced to bones in 9 days under optimum conditions. To the state Laci was in would take 7 days. Double that for under water and add some for the temperature and partial clothing and you are still miles away from 111 days. And Galloway originally said 6 months to a year - so which was it? Evelyn Hernandez was a skeleton after 84 days - Galloway was wrong.

She was found on April 14th. So what is that, January 24th, February 24th, March 24th, it would have been, April 24th would have been four months. So one, ten days shy, I guess. Did I miss a month in there? I'm not sure.

Anyway, it fits right in that three to six month period that she said.

Which was wrong. The body of Evelyn Hernandez proves that – she was skeletonized in water in 84 days, OR LESS. In air, Laci could have decomposed as she was found in 30 days or less.

Now, why is that important? Well, let's jump ahead to, let's go all the way back to when I started this morning and said Okay, Laci and Conner washed up right where the defendant was. So that's a fact. Proven fact. I can't say anything about it. The only other way, either he did it, of course, or somebody put the bodies there to frame him.

And I'm going to talk about what possible reason you would have to frame an unsuccessful fertilizer salesman in Modesto.

Once more a lie. Scott was far from unsuccessful. He was doing very well for a start-up business.

But before we get there, let's look at how somebody, or why somebody would frame, you know, anyone. Let's take Scott Peterson out of it for a second.

If you're going to frame somebody, that means you're going to try to pin the crime on them, right? So let's say I'm this faceless bad person that has abducted Laci Peterson. Somehow I figured out exactly where the defendant went, because I would have to know exactly where he went fishing in order to put the bodies right where he went. And I want, I want the bodies to be there, or at least to be found, so that the suspicion will go onto Scott Peterson.

Faulty logic. The bodies were dumped where others have been dumped before and will be again. It was just convenient.

What possible, here's how you know without any doubt that that's not true.

What possible reason would there be then to weight down or hide the bodies so they aren't found for, what, four, four and a half months, whatever it is.

There is no evidence anyone used any weights – none.

If you're going to pin it on somebody, that means you're going to want to make it look like they did it. If you want to make it look like they did it, you put the body right up on the shore right out of the gate. Maybe you put it ten feet off the shore, but you're not going to put it so it's hidden in the water so nobody finds it, because how is that possibly framing Scott Peterson?

Laci was dumped off the Albany Bulb or Point Isabel. Conner was placed next to a walking track well away from the shore at Point Isabel.

The only reason these bodies were found, yeah, the defendant put them in the water with weights on them.

Then where is the evidence? Why is it all supposition?

The only reason they were found is not because of some frame-up job or somebody all of a sudden said let's raise them up and pin it on Scott Peterson. Why would anybody do that? They've gotten away with it for four months and now all of a sudden they're going to raise the bodies so suspicion will go to him?

They couldn’t leave them where they were after the four months. That would lead the cops directly to them.

No. I mean that's ridiculous. Ludicrous. It's not reasonable. It didn't happen.

Nonsense. It did – but there’s no need to assume a frame up by others, just a convenient dump site.

The only reason those bodies were found is remember what Dr. Cheng testified to.

There was an extremely low tide on February 12th. And there was a very violent storm on February 12th. That combination broke the, broke Laci Peterson free and sent her floating towards the shore.

No, the two events did NOT happen at the same time. Cheng got it wrong.

That's the only reason that those bodies were found at all. Not because of some magical frame-up job, or for any other reason.

Correct – for once.

And if that's the fact, and that's the evidence that was before you in this case, then that man's a murderer. It's as simple as that.

Simple but wrong.

Again, like I said, there's no mysteries in this case.

There are many. Where was Laci held from Dec 24th to her death in March? Who cut the baby out of her and why?

What was Laci wearing when she was found? She was wearing those pants which I showed you. And I'm not going to show you those autopsy pictures again. You know, I could hold those pictures up and prove it to you, but you saw it. If you want to see it again, absolutely look at it, but you saw this stuff.

She was wearing those pants, they were very frayed and degraded, of course. And they were in the normal position of wear.

Yes, the pants which were NOT the pants she wore to the salon.

So what does that tell us? She wasn't sexually assaulted. Nobody assaulted her and, you know, had her get dressed up again and throw her back in the Bay.

Evidence? Still none?

The other reason we know she wasn't sexually assaulted is there were no injuries at all to any of her genitalia.

Her bra was in its normal position of wear. So that's further evidence of that.

And, finally, her maternity panties were in the normal position of wear. All those things were found on her body.

And her panties were worn out in back – which showed she had worn them for many, many weeks.

What else do we know from her body? There was no vaginal birth in this case.

So it wasn't like somebody grabbed Laci to hold her for the baby. That did not happen.

Still not evidence – all speculation.

No vaginal birth. Her cervix was intact and closed. That means that Conner did not come out of the birth canal.

What else do we have? There's no tool marks, which means she wasn't dismembered.

No, all it means is that there is no proof she was dismembered, but also no proof she wasn’t.

There's no indication that she had been stabbed, that she had been cut. You know, dismembered. Her arms, I mean her legs, arms, or head had been cut off. No evidence of that whatsoever.

No evidence is the theme of this case. No evidence of anything. No cause of death. No proof of homicide. All inference and suggestion.

There was duct tape on her. So we know that whoever killed her, the duct tape was attached to her. I think it was running up one leg and her upper torso. So we know that whoever killed her used duct tape.

There were barnacles, the duct tape is important for a couple of reasons. One of the main ones is it obviously proves she was murdered, but secondly, it has barnacles on it.

Once again assumptions. But duct tape doesn’t prove WHO killed her.

Remember there were barnacles on the duct tape and there was barnacles on Laci's body itself. Both consistent with Laci, you know, obviously being in the marine environment.

For no more than one or two days. Nothing else can be assumed.

Now, why do I bring that up and tell you about it? Because remember all that testimony that we had about that big plastic TARGET bag that was found and, you know, the insinuation, you know, kind of from the defense, remember they called Officer Phillips who testified he smelled the bag, and I'll talk about that in a minute. But kind of the insinuation was that's somehow related to this crime.

Well, that TARGET bag had no barnacles on it at all. It was wrapped in some duct tape, but you remember from Pin Kyo, the criminalist's testimony, it didn't match the duct tape that was on Laci. That TARGET bag had no human tissue in it. No deposing fat. No nothing that you would have if Laci Peterson had been wrapped in that bag.

It only proves she wasn’t in the bag long, if at all. It doesn’t prove that Conner wasn’t in the bag when he was moved to the shore.

That bag didn't have anything to do with this case. The only reason it even came up was because Officer Phillips had this memory at the last minute that the bag smelled like Laci. That's what he said.

I believe him.

Well, you know, there's a couple things about that. First off, remember they ran a cadaver dog by the bag, and a dog's got a better nose than Officer Phillips, and that dog didn't hit on the bag.

Secondly, this is going to sound very crude, and I apologize for it, but Officer Phillips had been standing by Laci Peterson's body for I think the testimony was seven or seven and a half hours. You know, I'm surprised he could smell anything but Laci Peterson at that point. I mean it's unfortunate, like I said, I hate to put it in those terms, but maybe one that's a little more palatable. Kind of like when you go into a smoky bar. Even though you're not smoking, you walk out in an hour and that's all you smell is the smoke. You know, it's the same kind of phenomenon.

Once again Distaso is testifying with no basis in fact. If he wanted to bring this in he should have produced evidence or witnesses.


2 comments:

Abouna said...

Thank you for visiting my blog and for your comment.

When I made my posting, it was done to get people to start thinking about what is happening to our "legal" system. How it is disintegrating right along with everything else here in America as we are shoved, like sheep to the slaughter, into a One World Government. I am a priest of the Orthodox Church, not a lawyer, so I could not give an adequate legal argument for or against Scott Peterson's guilt or innocents, but I do know that the way much of our media portrayed the case, especially Greta Van Susteren, is WRONG! The way she latches onto a case, then it is that case (Scott Peterson, Bobby Cutts, Drew Peterson)all day ,every day long before the "suspect" is even formally accused. She and her "panel of legal experts" go at it day in and day out trying the case on TV putting out all sorts of "evidence" proving the guilt of the suspect. This stinks and should not be allowed, because, as I stated on my blog, this is contaminating the potential jury pool and as far as I am concerned, it amounts to jury tampering.

I enjoyed your article: "THE PROSECUTOR'S CASE...", as you lay out some very interesting points. I must admit that deep down inside I have very strong feelings that Scott is innocent, and I also feel that it is wrong legally to charge a man with the murder of a fetus if the legal system is going to allow a woman to get away with murder when she has an abortion. Either a fetus is a person or it isn't, I cannot see how the Courts can have it both ways. For myself, as a priest, I consider the fetus a person, which makes the mother a murderer if she chooses to abort her unborn child, just as much as a man is if he causes the death of the unborn.

SarahLee said...

EXCELLENT POINT about it being murder whether the fetus is killed via an abortion or any other means -- Life is life, no matter what. I'm glad you found my blog; I enjoyed reading everything you have on yours, it really solidified my feelings about Scott being innocent!!! I hope to God that his lawyers can figure out a way to finally get our 'justice system' to give him some justice and stop making him pay for something he didn't do!