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

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

[Spunky]

From my link at posting #212

I sure would not want to be indited by a Grand Jury.

Prosecution by Information and Indictment: A Comparison

In a prosecution by information, (Preliminary)California law requires that there be an independent evidentiary determination of probable cause in an adversary proceeding before trial [46] but no equivalent right is granted to an accused who is prosecuted by grand jury indictment. Where an indictment is issued by the grand jury, the accused is not afforded the safeguard of an independent judicial evaluation of the evidence.

Indictment by grand jury affords none of the fundamental rights provided in a preliminary examination.[47] Unless he is called as a witness, the defendant has neither the right to appear and present evidence to the grand jury nor to confront witnesses against him [48] Only the district attorney, the attorney general or special counsel may appear and present evidence.[49] Even if called as a witness, a defendant may not have the assistance of counsel to advise him.[50] Although the grand jury may require the district attorney to issue process for defense witnesses when it "has reason to believe that such evidence exists,²[51] this provision is of little practical value since the proceedings are held in secret with no notice to a defendant. Furthermore, as indicate by the opening statement of Penal Code Section 939.7, the grand jury is "not required to hear evidence for the defendant," and thus may reject such evidence at the very outset [52] Without hearing the evidence in the first place, the opportunity to determine whether evidence exists to "explain away the charge" is in effect foreclosed, virtually assuring the finding of an indictment under Penal Code Section 939.8 on the basis of "unexplained or uncontradicted" evidence.[53]

In support of its finding, the grand jury is required to "receive none but evidence that would be admissible over objection at the trial of a criminal action . . . . [54] In determining what is admissible evidence, the grand jury may ask for the advice of the judge or district attorney. However, unless such advice is requested, the judge is excluded from the session,[55] leaving the jury to rely upon the prosecutor to advise it.[56] These contradictions have been the object of criticism by one commentator who has observed:

When the function of indictment . is mated with the responsibility of determining the character of the evidence that supports it, and with the right to exclude all evidence which could explain or contradict, the result is not proper. In short, it is both derogatory of the jury's basic purpose and devoid of fairness.[57]

Thus, a defendant who is subject to indictment by grand jury is denied the right to present evidence to explain or contradict the charge, has no right to appear or to have the assistance of counsel, and may not confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. On the other hand, a defendant charged by information has all of these rights in addition to the fact that, unlike the grand jury indictment process, the evidence is judged by a neutral and detached magistrate capable of independently evaluating the admissibility of that evidence.

[juzcuz]

This bothers me too... MG says: tape on Connor in a "Bow Tie Knot".... Expert didn't disagree with "Bow Tie" Description.


16 FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION
17
18 MR. GERAGOS: Q. Let me show you EE again. You
19 answered the judge's question. You said it could have just
20 got on there. So this tape that's on there that's knotted
21 behind the back, this baby would have to -- what? -- be
22 swimming like this, have the tape go over the head and then
23 underneath the arm and be knotted right here? Wouldn't you
24 admit that that is extremely unlikely that this tape would
25 have been wrapped around to be only two centimeters around
26 the neck, to also be wrapped around the arm and just so
27 happen have a bow tie knot right at the shoulder area?
28 A. Well, I would agree it's unlikely that a dead baby

1526
1 would swim but --
2 Q. Would you also agree that it's unlikely that the
3 dead baby would have that tape around it in such a fashion
4 that you had to cut it off as opposed to just pulling it
5 off?
6 A. You know, all I can do is describe the findings
7 there at autopsy. I know how deformable the head is as the
8 brain is liquefying.

[Devil_Anse]

Yes, but in the end, both a grand jury indictment and a bill of information have the same end result: a mere official beginning of prosecution!

[Devil_Anse]

(shudderrrr...)

If the tape loop extended down under one arm of the baby, I don't see how there could be said to be only 2 cm of room btw the tape and the neck. Obviously that was not the case on one side of the loop.

[juzcuz]

*I don't see how there.....2cm between tape and neck.*

I do.. There could have been some slack in the tape. I don't understand how there could be a "Bow Tie" knot behind his neck or shoulder.

[Velveeta]

It could be one of those things that we won't ever know, unless someday we get to see a representation of the knot.

[Sacajaweau]

You're right. The attorney is describing what he wants you to see.

[Sacajaweau]

Nobody saw Scott leave the house at 9:30, right??

[Cloe]

Thanks for your help!

[Cloe]

Thank you for doing the research - it does make a grand jury sound scary.

[drjulie]

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


Thank you!

[Canadian Outrage]

The baby was expelled from a deteriorating part of the fundus or top of the uterus!! Her cervix was intact and CLOSED.

[kcvl]

Peterson will stand trail. Dec. 3 arraignment.

[Canadian Outrage]

She had NO abdominal tissue at all. The baby came out of the huge hole in little Laci's body. She had ribs (several broken) but no tissue left in the abdomen. The baby would have been expelled out of there with great ease. Once the fundus of the uterus began to deteriorate the tremendous pressure from decomp gasses would have sent him sailing!!

[Canadian Outrage]

Thanks Vel. I wish they had cleared that up last night because the two mouthpieces for the Defense certainly seized on that. It was ABSOLUTELY NONSENSICAL and I was just about CRAZY. I swore at the Televison!!

[Canadian Outrage]

Praise GOD!! I knew he was going to trial and I am thankful that it is as soon as Dec. 3.. HAVE A GREAT XMAS SNOTTY!!!!!!!

[pinz-n-needlez]

lol Sing it, Sister!

I wonder if I can start cleaning my house now and put enough dinners in the freezer, so that I can get through the whole trial without interruptions.

I'll need to stockpile a ton of yarn for knitting while Geragos is speaking, so I don't have to replace the television too often.

Bless your heart, Laci, you protected your baby long enough to force that monster into a trial.

Pinz

[alexandria]

Funny talking about a tiara. I was/am sooooo tempted to buy that Frederick's of Hollywood costume and where that instead! Tease!!!

Wait a sec, where exactly were you gonna wear that getup at? Unless it is TO your bacolerette party. To wit I still need an invite (hint, hint) you ARE still in town are you not?

[Devil_Anse]

We have never heard of a single person who saw Scott actually leave his house at 9:30.

[Yaelle]

Will the trial be TELEVISED???? I hope so.