Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/29/2003 11:56:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/29/2003 11:58:03 AM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Or so says a Sacremento TV station.
Want to send this story to another AOL member? Click on the heart at the top of this window. TV: Tape Wrapped on Peterson Baby's Neck .c The Associated Press SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - An autopsy revealed that the body of Laci Peterson's unborn son had a significant cut and a short length of plastic tape wrapped around the neck, MSNBC reported Thursday. A source close to the case who spoke on condition of anonymity told The Associated Press that the TV report was correct. The cable news channel said it had received a portion of an autopsy report done by Contra Costa County coroner's office. Stanislaus County prosecutors did not return telephone calls for comment by The Associated Press. The Contra Costa County coroner's office said it would have no comment on the report. Part of the autopsy report indicated the unborn baby boy had 1 1/2 loops of plastic tape around his neck, the MSNBC report said. Scott Peterson, 30, of Modesto, is accused of killing his wife and unborn son, whom the couple had planned to name Conner, last Dec. 23 or 24 in their home. His wife was eight months pregnant at the time. The bodies washed up on the shore of San Francisco Bay last month. Contra Costa County authorities concluded their autopsy report earlier this month, but said they were unable to determine a cause of death. The autopsy results have been sealed by a Stanislaus County court order. It's possible the baby's body was cut shoulder to shoulder or became wrapped in the tape because of its long submersion in San Francisco Bay, the MSNBC report said, adding that the part of the coroner's report the network received ``doesn't prove anything one way or another.'' Peterson's defense attorney Mark Geragos would not comment on the report. He said Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Al Girolami, during a closed meeting in his chambers Tuesday, ``more than telegraphed that he does not want us commenting on the case.'' Girolami had said he was considering a gag order in the case to prevent news leaks. The MSNBC report called the findings a ``significant development'' and suggested it could be used to create reasonable doubt in a jury's mind about murder charges against Scott Peterson. Geragos, who took Peterson's case May 2, has suggested that members of a satanic cult were the killers. He has also hinted that a female mystery witness could lead authorities to the real killer and free Scott Peterson. The network did not say how it obtained the report. 05/29/03 15:09 EDT Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL..
View Quote
Apparently when he was dismembering her he performed a unintentional C-section and the baby made noise so it was strangled.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 12:01:07 PM EDT
[furious] Oh, yeah. There's a SPECIAL [devil] set aside for this little fucker....
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 12:04:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/29/2003 12:17:32 PM EDT by A-nus]
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Apparently when he was dismembering her he performed a unintentional C-section and the baby made noise so it was strangled.
View Quote
Is that your guess or was that in the story? because that is a huge assumption.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 12:07:24 PM EDT
I am so fucking tired of hearing about this shit. I wish Scott would get a little prison justice so the whole god damn story would go away.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 12:09:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Guns_N_Shizzle: I am so fucking tired of hearing about this shit. I wish Scott would get a little prison justice so the whole god damn story would go away.
View Quote
Amen.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 12:09:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By A-nus:
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Apparently when he was dismembering her he performed a unintentional C-section and the baby made noise so it was strangled.
View Quote
Is that your guess or was that in the tory? because that is a huge assumption.
View Quote
Guess I'm guilty of the same assumption, for that's exactly what I thought as well as I read the story... Whoever is responsible is one evil, soul-less SOB...
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 12:12:27 PM EDT
Has anyone heard where all the blood and bodily fluid evidence is for this dismemberment to have taken place? They said they found no blood in the house, as per MSNBC and FNC...... So where did the cutting up happen? LandCruiser? Anyone?
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 12:13:30 PM EDT
I made the same assumption that the author made. Think about it. A cut across both shoulders, and plastic tape wrapped around the neck? This is supposed to have happened from being run over by a tanker, then floating in the surf for a couple days? Theoretically possible, NOT probable.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 12:14:52 PM EDT
I agree that whoever killed them needs to be tortured daily in the most horrible manner possible for a year and THEN put to death In all probability that it was Scott who did it. However, he is still innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 12:15:08 PM EDT
Apparently when he was dismembering her he performed a unintentional C-section and the baby made noise so it was strangled.
View Quote
That was my thought too when I heard it on the radio and read it on the web...and it turned my stomach! That fucking savage BASTARD! Executing Peterson is too good for him. On second thought...I'd like to do it myself...like the Russians do. A short, shackled walk into the tiled enclosed cell with the slightly sloping floor with the drain in the middle. One pistol shot behind the right ear, aiming up and to the left. My God what a monster...[puke] <>
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 12:26:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 12:33:53 PM EDT
He's gonna walk.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 12:37:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
Originally Posted By SHIVAN458: So where did the cutting up happen? LandCruiser?
View Quote
If I had to guess, I'd say on the boat. Boats are made to be washed down easily.
View Quote
Usually, I'm the first one to be crying guilty on this shit....so far I ain't buying it. From the pieces that have been released this story is not adding up. Slam dunk case, involving dismemberment, but the DA has already claimed his case is entirely circumstantial? [>:/] He is likely guilty...is this dismembering angle a concoction to throw in doubt? It seems every time I field dress a deer I at least nick myself once or twice....did they find a bone saw? I mean come on, there are some pretty big holes here....[whacko]
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 12:41:26 PM EDT
Could someone please provide me with a link to a story where it said she was dismembered? First, I don't recall hearing that. Second, it's unlikely that a dismembered body would wash ashore, because it probably wouldn't bloat & float.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 12:48:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By eswanson: Could someone please provide me with a link to a story where it said she was dismembered? First, I don't recall hearing that. Second, it's unlikely that a dismembered body would wash ashore, because it probably wouldn't bloat & float.
View Quote
Well shit, I heard it almost every morning when they found her body......missing head, no feet below the ankles, blah, blah..... Now a cut from shoulder-to-shoulder....on an unborn fetus. I have not seen it in print, but I KNOW it has been said -- explicitly -- on both MSNBC and FOX News.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 12:51:40 PM EDT
Geez... I guess everything they say in the media about assault weapons and the people that use them is true too! All of you who have already tried and convicted Scott Peterson better hope you never get charged with something and get folks on the jury who think like you. Frankly, the evidence I've heard, which is all circumstantial and spread by the media, doesn't look good for Scott; however, since I'm not a trier of the facts in this case who has access to all the evidence, I'm going to reserve my judgment until those who do try the case render their verdict. Decent members of society will do the same.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 12:54:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FullAutoM4gery: Geez... I guess everything they say in the media about assault weapons and the people that use them is true too! All of you who have already tried and convicted Scott Peterson better hope you never get charged with something and get folks on the jury who think like you. Frankly, the evidence I've heard, which is all circumstantial and spread by the media, doesn't look good for Scott; however, since I'm not a trier of the facts in this case who has access to all the evidence, I'm going to reserve my judgment until those who do try the case render their verdict. Decent members of society will do the same.
View Quote
Well said........
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 12:56:23 PM EDT
Is there some reason a "decent member of society" is not permitted to have, or express, an opinion before the trial? The jury is required to presume him innocent. We're not.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 12:57:40 PM EDT
By your theory of waiting until the jury renders it's verdict, are you saying that you believe OJ was innocent? After all, that's what the trier of fact found.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 1:00:29 PM EDT
I don't know about Cal, but around here the blue crabs could at least make a body look dismembered in pretty short order. How long was she in the water before they found her?
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 1:08:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/29/2003 1:11:29 PM EDT by SHIVAN458]
Originally Posted By eswanson: By your theory of waiting until the jury renders it's verdict, are you saying that you believe OJ was innocent? After all, that's what the trier of fact found.
View Quote
I don't think OJ was innocent, but then again we got to hear the trial, ee got to see the detials outlined for us; the evidence was presented. Right now, there is so much flotsum surrounding this case, it is unrecognizable. The fact they had not considered other suspects is a bad sign in my book. Despite what they said, when it came out they finally said that Scott was the sole focus of their attention. When the facts come out and get cleared up, all this other bullshit is pre-trial hype. There are too many holes in this case right now. Why didn't he just stay gone, in Mexico, when they let him go down there for business? I still want to know why he sold her toruck if he thought she was still alive? You see there is too much shit...to get a clear picture...at least for me.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 1:13:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SHIVAN458: Right now, there is so much flotsum surrounding this case, it is unrecognizable.
View Quote
No pun intended? [puke]
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 1:18:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By eswanson:
Originally Posted By SHIVAN458: Right now, there is so much flotsum surrounding this case, it is unrecognizable.
View Quote
No pun intended? [puke]
View Quote
None![slap]
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 1:52:46 PM EDT
Since we are going to try Peterson here, based on the facts presented by the media, why don't we get those facts correct. The media is reporting that the baby's body was cut after birth. That would seem to rule out the cut while doing a C-section theory. It would also seem to clear Peterson of the charge of killing his unborn fetus. As for OJ being innocent... A civil jury found him responsible for the deaths. BTW, I heard [b]all[/b] the evidence as it was presented to the jury. My opinion is based on those facts, not media drivle.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 2:00:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FullAutoM4gery: As for OJ being innocent... A civil jury found him responsible for the deaths. BTW, I heard [b]all[/b] the evidence as it was presented to the jury. My opinion is based on those facts, not media [s]drivle[/s][red]drivel[/red].
View Quote
Well - just so I'm clear - which jury are you agreeing with? The one that found him not guilty under the reasonable doubt standard, or the one that found him liable under the preponderance of the evidence standard? And when you say you heard all the evidence, did you leave the room when the jury did, so you didn't see all the evidence or hear the argument that they didn't see or hear? Because a lot of what was on T.V. was never heard by the jury; it took place outside their presence.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 2:04:16 PM EDT
Are you a friend of the Peterson family eswanson? Cause you are getting awfully irate over people exercising their First Amendment right to share a opinion...
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 2:11:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/29/2003 2:14:37 PM EDT by eswanson]
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Are you a friend of the Peterson family eswanson? Cause you are getting awfully irate over people exercising their First Amendment right to share a opinion...
View Quote
Well, no, not really. If you read some posts above, it's not me who stated that "decent people" will keep their opinions to themselves until the jury returns a verdict. My subsequent posts were actually just to point out that there's no reason for "decent people" not to have or express opinions. Here, I'll cut-n-paste it for you:
Originally posted by eswanson: Is there some reason a "decent member of society" is not permitted to have, or express, an opinion before the trial? The jury is required to presume him innocent. We're not.
View Quote
This was in response to:
Originally posted by FullAutoM4gery: ...I'm going to reserve my judgment until those who do try the case render their verdict. Decent members of society will do the same.
View Quote
So, as you see, I'm all in favor of the 1st Amendment and people expressing their opinions. Hope this cleared it up.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 2:23:37 PM EDT
I would guess that the bodies came apart in the water. The cut and the plastic wrapped around the neck of the baby could have also occurred in the water. Personally I didn't need to know the condition of the bodies or the results of the autopsy. When did the media decide speculation was better than reporting?
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 2:30:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By JIMBEAM: When did the media decide speculation was better than reporting?
View Quote
Right around the time that advertisements went to $100K/minute. [noclue] [nana]
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 8:16:36 PM EDT
I quess in the end we will find out from the OJ,Blake,Petterson trial if Divorce lawyers would be cheaper than trial lawyers! Bob [:D]
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 10:38:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SHIVAN458:
Originally Posted By eswanson: By your theory of waiting until the jury renders it's verdict, are you saying that you believe OJ was innocent? After all, that's what the trier of fact found.
View Quote
I don't think OJ was innocent, but then again we got to hear the trial, ee got to see the detials outlined for us; the evidence was presented. Right now, there is so much flotsum surrounding this case, it is unrecognizable. The fact they had not considered other suspects is a bad sign in my book. Despite what they said, when it came out they finally said that Scott was the sole focus of their attention. When the facts come out and get cleared up, all this other bullshit is pre-trial hype. There are too many holes in this case right now. Why didn't he just stay gone, in Mexico, when they let him go down there for business? I still want to know why he sold her toruck if he thought she was still alive? You see there is too much shit...to get a clear picture...at least for me.
View Quote
On the truck issue, Laci and Scott had been planning to get a better car for her because the truck hadn't been reliable and it wasn't what Laci wanted for a family car. They had been planning to get rid of it and get a new car, and had discussed it with others prior to her disappearance. There was also reports of insurance policies that were taken out just prior to her death. There were two policies that were taken out one or two years ago. I am speaking from memory of a radio interview of someone very close to the situation. There are a number of bits of information like this that, depending how you characterize them, can be totally innocent but made to damn you. It looks like Scott is the perpetrator, but I am not assuming that. My contempt for the media is not much less than for the killer, whoever it may be. The only use the media has for me in a situation like this is for the bits and pieces of detail and facts I can glean, and then assemble later with other pieces as they come out. Remember Richard Jewell? Everthing you see and hear from the media is designed to keep your interest for sale to the highest bidder, and I do not trust that there is much in the way of objectivity that survives. And I don't join mobs.
Top Top