Posted on 10/22/2004 5:32:21 AM PDT by runningbear
Expert: Laci Peterson's unborn son lived at least five days after her disappearance
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — A defense medical expert testified Thursday that Scott Peterson's unborn son lived at least five days after the Christmas Eve disappearance of his pregnant wife, Laci.
But the witness's conclusion — a finding that held the potential to exonerate the fertilizer salesman — was severely undercut when he admitted his assessment relied on personal notions of "realistic" behavior by women at baby showers.
The obstetrician, Dr. Charles March, told jurors at Peterson's capital trial that he decided Dec. 29, 2002, was the earliest possible date of death for the child in part because of the timing of a phone call Laci Peterson made to inform a close friend she was pregnant.
The 27-year-old called her childhood friend Renee Tomlinson on June 9, 2002, the day after Peterson had thrown a baby shower for Tomlinson.
Story continues ......
Three defense witnesses testified. Judge Alfred Delucchi announced that the jury will be sequestered during deliberations, which are scheduled to start the first week of November.
KEVIN BERTALOTTO
Bertalotto is a Stanislaus County district attorney's investigator who followed up on numerous tips authorities received about Laci Peterson's disappearance and death. In April 2004, he interviewed a man who said he saw Laci Peterson walking her dog in late autumn 2002. On cross-examination, Bertalotto acknowledged that the man also said he had substance abuse issues and was only sporadically sober in late 2002.
RICARDO CORDOVA......
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expert: Unborn child died days after Laci vanished
Scott and Laci Peterson's child could not have died any earlier than Dec. 29, 2002, a Los Angeles-area gynecologist testified today on behalf of the defense.
Dr. Charles March's testimony broadly contradicts the prosecution's assertion that the child died in her mother's womb on or just before Dec. 24, 2002, the day Scott Peterson allegedly killed his wife.
March, a noted fertility expert, said that he examined all the available data regarding the fetus, who was to be named Conner. These included such factors as the day Laci Peterson got a positive pregnancy test, several ultrasound measurements and age estimations, and measurements of the bones from the fetus' recovered body. Laci Peterson and the child washed up separately along the San Francisco Bay shore in April 2003.
By March's calculation, the fetus' death could ......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jurors display doubt
Defense witness backtracks; judge planning sequestration
REDWOOD CITY -- Various jurors smiled, chuckled, covered their mouths, and looked away Thursday as a key defense witness in Scott Peterson's murder trial defended a crucial medical opinion by basing it partly on banter at a baby shower.
Also, Superior Court Judge Alfred Delucchi said that he would take the rare step of sequestering jurors when they begin deliberating Peterson's fate, probably in less than two weeks.
Dr. Charles March, a gynecologist and fertility expert, insisted that Peterson's unborn child could not have died before Dec. 29, 2002. That would all but clear Peterson of double-murder charges -- because by that time he was under intense police and media scrutiny.
A prosecution fetal-development expert testified earlier that Conner Peterson, whose birth was expected in February 2003, died about the time authorities think his father killed the baby's mother and dumped her body in San Francisco Bay -- on or just before Christmas Eve 2002.
March's credibility came into question Thursday when the......
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peterson Prosecutors Deal Blow to Defense
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (AP) - A witness critical to Scott Peterson's defense conceded on the stand that he made an assumption in calculating when Laci Peterson's fetus died, a potential victory for prosecutors as Peterson's murder trial is nearing its conclusion.
The age of the fetus is crucial because defense lawyers maintain it was born alive, proving Scott Peterson couldn't have killed his wife - given her due date of Feb. 10, nearly seven weeks after she vanished. By that time, a nationwide search was under way and Scott Peterson was under police observation.
On Thursday, Dr. Charles March, a gynecologist, testified that based on bone measurements of the dead fetus and reviewing ultrasounds taken of Laci, the fetus probably died on Dec. 29, 2002, at the earliest, five days after the pregnant schoolteacher vanished.
That would undercut the prosecution's claim that Scott Peterson murdered his wife on or around Dec. 24, then dumped her body into San Francisco Bay. But March also said he based his findings, in part, on anecdotal evidence of when Laci may have discovered she was pregnant.........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense witness asks D.A. to cut him slack
Expert says fetus died days after mother disappeared
Dr. Charles March was expected to be a crucial witness for the defense in Scott Peterson's double-murder trial -- one who could single-handedly exonerate the former Modesto salesman by showing that the defendant's unborn baby died a week after prosecutors say the child did.
But by the end of his testimony Thursday, legal analysts and jurors closed their notebooks, rolled their eyes and snickered when they thought no one was looking.
"There were moments today that reminded me of Chernobyl," said Stan Goldman, a criminal law professor and legal expert for Fox News, of the cross-examination of the fertility specialist.
By the end of the day, March slumped in his chair, made an exasperated noise with his lips and begged prosecutor Dave Harris to "cut me some slack" about a "typo" in his report as his slicked-back hair lost its coif and silvery brown strands fell and stuck to his forehead.
"When an expert says, 'Cut me some slack,' it's all over," said former San Francisco prosecutor Jim Hammer, who has been sitting in on the case. .......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jury to deliberate while sequestered
Judge Alfred Delucchi ruled this afternoon that the jury in the Scott Peterson trial will be sequestered during deliberations, which are scheduled to begin the first week of November.
Delucchi announced the decision following testimony from a defense expert who said Scott and Laci Peterson's child could not have died any earlier than Dec. 29, 2002.
The testimony of Dr. Charles March, a Los Angeles-area physician, broadly contradicted the prosecution's assertion that the child died in her mother's womb on or just before Dec. 24, 2002, the day Scott Peterson allegedly killed his wife.
March, a noted fertility expert, said that he examined all the available data regarding the fetus, who was to be named Conner. These included such factors as the day Laci Peterson told a friend she had gotten a positive pregnancy test, several ultrasound measurements and age estimations, and measurements of the bones from the fetus' recovered body. Laci Peterson and the child washed up separately along the San Francisco .......
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOS ANGELES -- Prosecutors Thursday attacked a witness critical to Scott Peterson's defense who nervously conceded he made an assumption as he calculated when Laci Peterson's fetus died.
Dr. Charles March, a gynecologist asked by the defense to examine prosecution witnesses' findings and Laci Peterson's medical records, testified that based on bone measurements of the dead fetus and reviewing ultrasounds taken of Laci, the fetus probably died on Dec. 29, 2002, at the earliest, five days after the pregnant schoolteacher vanished.
That would undercut the prosecution's claim that Scott Peterson murdered his wife on or around Dec. 24, then dumped her body into San Francisco Bay. But March also said he based his findings, in part, on anecdotal evidence of when Laci may have discovered she was pregnant.
According to previous testimony, Laci Peterson told one of her friends on June 9, 2002, that she was pregnant..........
PINGING.......
PINGING.......
PINGING.......
We saw a little bit of big-shot attorney Mark Geragos' style in Dave Harris. I felt so proud of Harris. I almost wanted to give him a high-5 at the end of the day. Alternate juror #1 also looked pleasantly surprised, smiling and laughing as the doctor tried to get through his testimony. Juror #8, the Teamster, just stared at the witness, rocking back and forth in his chair, almost taking pleasure in the witness's downfall..........
Just from my point of view... I would never announce a pregnancy at someone else's baby shower because it would take the spotlight off the main mom-to-be. Not that the testimony had any credence anyway, but that's the first thing I thought of.
Who cares...enough of this circus sideshow. There are more important things going on in the nation than this soap opera.
The 27-year-old called her childhood friend Renee Tomlinson on June 9, 2002, the day after Peterson had thrown a baby shower for Tomlinson.
You're early.
He was but he must have come at a discount...he completely fell apart on the stand. Many sources reported that the "expert" had a meltdown.
Get back over to the political threads where you belong.
Leave us Crime and Corruption buffs to enjoy our cup of tea.
One cannot live by politics alone. I for one am a bit stressed over it the past several weeks and enjoy the diversions.
Exactly, a lady doesn't announce her pregnancy at another's baby shower.
You treat this judicial sideshow as entertainment to be enjoyed over tea?
It is voyeuristic and sick.
For what? This is the first time I posted one one of these mindless Peterson threads.
okay, move along now! ;o)
justice my friend...justice!! troll along now!
Then why are YOU here on this thread? Why don't you just run along to your "more important things" and let the adults talk.
Me, too, Jackie-O. The ups and downs of the polls and the shout-over talking heads are giving me headaches!!
You know what's "voyeuristic and sick?" It's people who profess to despise certain threads, yet show up on them like clockwork. Can't stay away? Can't MYOB?
Wassamattah, your mouse buttons only click on articles you hate?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.