Replies

"Sonar can't pick up ANYTHING covered with silt, which any anchors certainly would be by now."

How do treasure hunters locate shipwrecks? They use sonar to locate objects buried under sand and silt, sometimes for thousands of years. In a prior post I mentioned the use of various sonar frequencies. One of the reasons for this is that the sound waves at certain frequencies will penetrate the silt yet still echo off of other solid materials. So there shouldn't be that great a problem with penetrating the silt in the Bay where the search for the anchors should be.

Even if the anchors are covered with silt by now, were they covered by silt when Scott Peterson led them to the exact spot your expert witnesses claim the body was dumped?

"Do you think it looks like the bottom of an aquarium down there?"

This is where your argument contradicts itself. On the one hand you claim silting is occurring fast enough to cover objects in a matter of weeks or months as would be the case for the anchors being buried. But at the same time you claim the bottom looks like a junkyard, which can only happen if the objects on the floor have not been silted over. Unless people have been going out and dumping additional objects in the search zone after the dumping of the anchors, one of your claims has to be false.

If you claim that people have been going out and dumping objects after the police searches began, then any evidence retrieved from the area is going to be tainted since the police did not secure the crime scene and the evidence could have been planted after the fact. I'm sure you're aware of the tainted evidence issue given your legal career, but I wanted to mention the matter for any less knowledgeable readers who might be following this discussion.