Three separate witnesses to innocence

There are three separate witnesses, each of whom independently prove the innocence of Peterson. None depend on the others.

1) Laci Peterson could not have been in the sea for more than 14 days at the extreme outside. 16 weeks is impossible - there would remain only a few scattered bones of hers and nothing of the baby. Read about this here:
http://thevoiceofsanity.blogspot.com/2011/03/111-days-compared-with-7-days.html
In fact the minimum time for a body to be reduced to bones in much more adverse water conditions is one day and the prosecution offered zero evidence that it did take longer, a task at which they must succeed to get a conviction from a reasonable jury.


2) Every witness in the trial gave testimony based on science or experience that the baby was full term. Dr's Henry Lee and Cyril Wecht did the same, although they weren't called to testify. This means that a baby aged 32 weeks and one day (allegedly) went into the water and a full term (37 - 40 weeks) baby came out. Here is a quote from Dr. Wecht:

"After Henry and I examined Laci Peterson’s body for nearly ninety minutes, technicians brought in the body of Conner Peterson. ... The biggest issue was the baby’s body development. To obtain an accurate estimate of age, we measured the baby’s length. Decomposition does not impact length because a person’s bone structure does not shrink from immersion. Conner measured about nineteen and one-half inches, which is technically within the range of a full-term baby. Plastic tape had been and still was wrapped around the neck and held there by a knot."


3) Laci Peterson's underwear had the seat only worn out. The front was intact, the seat was missing. This would have taken weeks and would not have happened post mortem. Read about this here:
http://sites.google.com/site/another9912/theevidence

So we have three unshakable pieces of evidence each proving that Laci and Conner lived long after Dec 24th. This makes Scott innocent, without any doubt. Every other piece of evidence, without exception, proves the same thing. Not one piece of prosecution evidence goes to guilt. Not one.

Not one, not two but THREE separate witnesses, each of whom independently prove the innocence of Peterson and not one of which can be impeached.

Sadly, experience teaches me that even such powerful evidence as this will not prevent the blood lust for revenge that the media has whipped up in the public. Somehow they will blank this from their minds just as they do the absolute lack of evidence for guilt offered by the prosecution - or comprehended by the jury. Unable to grasp the concept of evidence leading to the truth, they will allow the ludicrous fiction they have swallowed to control their reality, justifying it with the shoddy process they call 'thinking'.