Detective: Laci Peterson's body dressed in tan pants, contradicting

SFChronicle.com ^ | 11/14/2003 | Brian Melley

[drjulie]

"Sorry, I know that's not very clear. Anyway, it is possible to use BOTH a preliminary and a grand jury in some places."

I appreciate the answer. I'm always interested in strategy, particularly the psychology behind certain moves (e.g., manipulation of public perception)but maybe the reason is nothing more than procedural. I kind of let go of the question until I heard James Hammer ask it last night. I thought if he's wondering it's probably not a bad question.

[Velveeta]

This part is a mystery. On one hand, I agree with you. On the other, he even tried to use his "golfing alibi" on a neighbor...but I think he had to change his story when he realized that noone would verify his presence on the golf course.

[Sandylapper]

Oh, thank you, Spunk! Of course I'll be there if it's not too late to RSVP!

[Cloe]

I do feel the DA has to be careful. It is totally stupid ideas like this that get legs of their own and may come back to haunt them.I'm sure there are people today believing the baby might have been born alive after listening to Johnnie C last night.

[Cloe]

Thanks - but I don't get FOX - I'll have to hope they show up somewhere else!

[Cloe]

I agree with you. And the word "escaping" is more accurate then "born". Born implys that the birthing process occured when there is no way it could have.

[Devil_Anse]

Yes, btw, your explanation of the medical examiner's seemingly conflicting conclusions was one of those "ohhhhh, I see NOW" moments.

I mean, the medical examiner is faced with a baby's body, no idea where it came from, no idea who it is, and there's no mother's body near it or around it (at the time), so naturally he would consider the possibility that the baby might have been born. But when the mother's body drifted up--the body of a mother who they knew was not due to deliver yet at the time she died--that put the baby's body in a whole new perspective.

[Devil_Anse]

Oh dear. They'll have to mortgage Jackie's oxygen tank!

[Devil_Anse]

There is a witness who said he thought he saw Scott driving with the boat attached during the middle of the night and he correctly identified the name of the boat. (Don't know if the name of the boat was let out to the media at that point in time.)

Your comment is yet ANOTHER good illustration of why the police do not tell the public everything immediately! I know you see how much more credible that witness' statement would be if the name of the boat was NOT released at that time!

It's things like that that make me disagree strongly with those who think the police have an obligation to tell us, the public, all sorts of information, as soon as they have it. IMO, just b/c the police keep some things under their hats during an investigation does NOT mean they are necessarily engaging in a "cover-up".

(I'm not aiming this mini-rant at you, Sacajaweau, I'm addressing comments that have been made by some other posters from time to time.)

PS He also knew he'd need that fishing license when he WAS out on the water--presumably in the dark wee hours of Dec. 24--just in case some fish/game warden stopped him while he was out there.

[Devil_Anse]

You're so right about the possibility of premature labor. That would occur to almost anyone who was honestly baffled as to her whereabouts. My friend's daughter is married to one of the dumbest men on earth, was pregnant, and one day he came home to find her not at home. Sure enough, she had had a premature labor scare and was at the hospital. Furthermore, the first thought of this husband of hers was that maybe she was at the hospital. I know that, b/c he went to the computer, saw that I was the last person she'd talked with, and called me long-distance to ask if I knew whether she'd gone to the hospital.

[hergus]

Vel, I was screaming at the TV last night, yes, my last vestige of sanity has left me.

"Liquified! Liquified!" Don't any of you know anything!"

About time for a break...LOL.

[Spunky]

"For one thing, I distinctly remember someone saying that they can use a grand jury AND a preliminary. Don't ask me to explain that under CA law, though."

If you feel like wading through all this, it gives a better understanding of a Preliminary Hearing versus a Grand Jury in Calif.

It appears to me a District Attorney can either proceed by a Preliminary or by Grand Jury, but not both at the same time.

It also appears though that if they go with a Preliminary Hearing and the Judge decides there is not enough evidence to go to Criminal Trial, then the District Attorney can take it before a Grand Jury.

Below is the Conclusion of the long article about Grand Juries versus Preliminary Hearings

Conclusion

Felony suspects who desire to contest the existence of probable cause to support a formal accusation against them presently face a substantial handicap when accused by a grand jury indictment as opposed to being accused by information.(Preliminary) Under the latter procedure, they are entitled to the right to counsel, the right to confront witnesses and the right to present evidence--rights which protect fundamental interests at a critical stage of the proceedings.[105] Yet, those rights may be entirely denied in the absolute discretion of the district attorney to proceed by grand jury indictment in lieu of prosecution by information.

No compelling state interest is apparent to justify such discrimination. Because of the California Supreme Court¹s recently articulated equal protection-due process test for invidious discrimination [106] and the United States Supreme Court¹s recent expansion of due process requirements [107] in dealing with parole revocations, it would appear that a modification of this arbitrary power to prosecute by grand jury indictment sans preliminary hearing may soon be anticipated
Grand Jury Indictment Versus Prosecution By Information

[Spunky]

P.S. Because of what I read in that article on Grand Juries and Preliminary's leading me to think they do not convene at the same time on the same case I still come to the conclusion that whatever that Grand Jury in Fresno is doing is not about Scott murdering Laci, but some other case that ties Scott and the Company he works for together.

But I may be misunderstanding the whole process still as I can do that. :-)

[Devil_Anse]

It also appears though that if they go with a preliminary hearing and the judge decides there is not enough evidence to go to criminal trial, then the District Attorney can take it before a Grand Jury.

Bingo! That makes sense to me.

Thanks for the research, Spunky!

[Devil_Anse]

Re: the grand jury in Fresno.

Remember, that is a FEDERAL grand jury, and they are in the STATE courts with the preliminary hearing. It is possible for a person to be prosecuted by both the feds and the individual state--for the same crime. It's not double jeopardy, b/c it's two different sovereigns doing the prosecuting.

IMO, they used the federal grand jury in Fresno b/c it gave them subpoena power for records, etc., that they needed a subpoena to get. Yes, they could have subpoenaed the same stuff in the state court, but they wouldn't have gotten it as early, and besides, the federal court has a longer reach with its subpoenas.

[Lucy Lake]

Hergus, thanks for posting the pictures.

[Cloe]

Would the grand jury and the preliminary hearing always remain separate - or could the findings in one be used in the other? I'm not sure if my question makes any sense - although it does show my ignorance of the law!

[Sacajaweau]

I think the golf comment to the neighbor just slipped out. It's what he PLANNED to say ORIGINALLY, and he didn't erase it from his mind good enough. We all do that sometimes.

[Devil_Anse]

They'd be separate. That is, each one requires a fresh presentation of the evidence, which means they would actually bring the witness there and swear him/her in.

But the evidence would be largely the same. (Not to say that the state might not have evidence which they are saving for trial.)

[Spunky]

"Remember, that is a FEDERAL grand jury,"

Oopps! I forgot about it being a Federal Grand Jury.

When I get more time I will try and research that, but now off to the Dentist.