Skip to comments.Convicted By Suspicion -- Why Scott Peterson May Be Innocent
Posted on 11/30/2004 10:26:51 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman
click here to read article
NOW I see you're already here.
I just pinged you, Jackie and Runningbear on the other thread.
Want a big laugh? Read this tripe!
This reads like a self-serving twit,
trying to use FR to peddle his "book"
in the loosest term of the word "book."
Just checked out his forum.
He uses FR to post NOTHING but his own stuff (crap, IMO).
How would this Asshole like to bury his daughter without arms to hold her murdered baby???
This enrages me to the point that I don't care if I offend and get banned.
"because the official date and time of Laci's death is the day her body washed up on shore, April 14th -- ???? Even though it was apparent by the state of decomposition that she'd been dead for quite some time? Puhleeeze."
The point is, if the date of Laci's death in the Coroner's report is pro forma, then why should I take the Coroner's classification of Laci's death as homicide as anything but equally pro forma, when the medical examiners who autopsied Laci could not assign any cause of death?
The Coroner's classification of Laci's death as homicide was not based on medical evidence.
Pro forma? You make absolutely no sense. No sense at all. Are you saying that a coroner has no authority to determine the manner of death? There have been murder cases brought to trial with convictions with no cause of death proven, but with a determination that the manner of death was homicide. If a corpse is too decomposed to determine whether or not death was caused by strangulation, poison, or suffocation, an ME or a coroner can still determine that a homicide occurred.
From Contra Costa County's coroner's website:
"The Coroners primary duty is to determine the cause, manner and mode of death as a result of homicide, suicide, accidental or unexplained deaths. The determination of death is reached through examination of evidence, scene investigation, review of medical records, witness and doctor interviews as well as autopsies and/or Coroner Inquests."
A coroner makes determinations that are legally defensible, and are used in court. But it seems that that doesn't matter to you.
Did you read the transcripts?
The cause of death was homicide: by ruling out natural cause, suicide and accident.
The the ME was not able to determine MANNER of death.
In the absence of a corpse, how are we to know that a murder has occurred? There could be a witness to a murder and the victim is missing, and a trail of supporting forensic evidence, for example.
But in this case the body gives no evidence that the cause of death was homicide, so we must to go other evidence ... and that evidence is lacking, as I pointed out. No eyewitnesses, no evidence of a murder weapon having existed much less one that links the victim to a suspect, no crime scene, no known time or place of death, no forensic evidence that isn't compatible with common transference.
It's counter-intuitive that Scott Peterson -- who was so clumsy in his lies that even the clueless Amber Frey figured it out -- committed an otherwise perfect crime.
"[Quoting me] 'No ME could possibly conclude the cause of death as homicide because they were unable to determine a cause of death.'
"The cause of death was homicide: by ruling out natural cause, suicide and accident. The ME was not able to determine MANNER of death."
That's playing with words. The medical examiners who performed the autopsies could not offer an opinion to a medical certainty on how or why or what week Laci Peterson and her baby died.
Your entire article is FOS to anyone who has been paying the slightest bit of attention to this trial.
And that would not include you. Because if you had, you'd know that you don't need a body, a cause of death, or a motive to convict.
"If you don't have the facts, argue the law. If you don't have the law, argue the facts. If you don't have the law or the facts, impugn the fairness of the process."
*sigh* If this is an example of your ability to think and reason, then I won't be buying any of your books.
You are totally self-serving. IMO, you use FR for self promotion purposes only. No murder? A body weighted down?
You deal is simplicities. Your arguments transcend logic and the law. I won't wish you luck in your attempt to peddle your "book."
Okay, this is both a personal smear and completely irrelevant to proving your case.
You have all the qualifications to have been on the prosecution team in the trial of Scott Peterson.
I thought I said don't quote me.
Just one example, but there are many:
Person X is missing and reported as such by her husband. The husband has replaced carpeting in the bedroom, but the blood stain is still illuminated with luminol. The area of the blood stain to the volume of blood loss can be calculated to determine that anyone losing that volume of blood would be dead.
Could NOT resist.
I liked it too much.