The Foreigner

[introspectre]

Intro wrote:

Actually, I do not expect anything to change, it will all be exactly the same just as I have stated that 'nothing has changed, IMO. I understand how the Appeals Process works. In the meantime, noone--not even in blogs and forums--has come up with anything/anyone, but SLP.

Really, I guess WAH has never told you about the articles on the PWC blog -- which point definitively away from Scott.

but, I agree with you, nothing's going to change. the State had no evidence to begin with, and it's not going to be able to find any because Scott is factually innocent.

BTW, tell WAH I'm still waiting for him to produce that info from NOAA and SFPORTS that confirms Cheng's testimony. He said it's there, but he has yet to produce it. Tell him he's delusional if he thinks I take his word for it, especially when I have the data from NOAA and SFPORTS on SII and it DOES NOT agree with Cheng.

ROFLMAO! Marlene, there is no reason to bring up WAH anymore--just respond to me. Your investigative skills are just not skillful--LOL! I have the NOAA and SFPORTS data as well and they do agree with Dr. Ralph Cheng. You, obviosly, have misunderstood and misinterpreted his testimony and you have stated a specious argument to mislead--I suggest you read the testimony again and again until you finally get it.

[marlene]

Intro wrote:

Actually, I do not expect anything to change, it will all be exactly the same just as I have stated that 'nothing has changed, IMO. I understand how the Appeals Process works. In the meantime, noone--not even in blogs and forums--has come up with anything/anyone, but SLP.

Really, I guess WAH has never told you about the articles on the PWC blog -- which point definitively away from Scott.

but, I agree with you, nothing's going to change. the State had no evidence to begin with, and it's not going to be able to find any because Scott is factually innocent.

BTW, tell WAH I'm still waiting for him to produce that info from NOAA and SFPORTS that confirms Cheng's testimony. He said it's there, but he has yet to produce it. Tell him he's delusional if he thinks I take his word for it, especially when I have the data from NOAA and SFPORTS on SII and it DOES NOT agree with Cheng.

ROFLMAO! Marlene, there is no reason to bring up WAH anymore--just respond to me. Your investigative skills are just not skillful--LOL! I have the NOAA and SFPORTS data as well and they do agree with Dr. Ralph Cheng. You, obviosly, have misunderstood and misinterpreted his testimony and you have stated a specious argument to mislead--I suggest you read the testimony again and again until you finally get it.

quit pretending intro, no need to. no one cares.

post the data from NOAA and SFPORTS that agrees with Cheng and proves me wrong. Sorry, you saying so just doesn't cut it. I posted ALL of the data I used to support my arguments, you (and WAH) have posted NONE, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Quote Cheng, and then post the data that supports his statements. That's the way to debate.

Post the data I have, and post your data that shows me to be incorrect. That's the way to debate.

It's very hard to misunderstand and misinterpret when numbers are given. 40 knots, 8-12 hours, 20 knots.

Cheng did not produce the data he used to derive his PVD -- so if he used different data than what he gave in his testimony--well, that's deceiving the Court with false and misleading testimony, which, the last I heard, constitutes Prosecutorial Misconduct. Did Cheng willfully lie, or is he just incompetent?

so, intro, put up or shut up!

[jane]

Intro- Just curious--Is there any part of the prosecution case that you do not believe?

[introspectre]

Intro- Just curious--Is there any part of the prosecution case that you do not believe?

Jane,

First of all, the prosecution put forth a circumstantial evidence case brought upon by the investigation by all LE involved in this case. In this instance, I do believe in their case against SLP. After the trial and reading the transcripts and various websites--forums, blogs, etc, etc., I can see how this crime developed in context, but the prosecution can only go by what is presented to them and by the rules of the court present it to a judge and a jury. I can only go by what I have read and what I have read does not exhonerate SLP, IMO, it only proves his guilt even more.

[jane]

Intro- Just curious--Is there any part of the prosecution case that you do not believe?

Jane,

First of all, the prosecution put forth a circumstantial evidence case brought upon by the investigation by all LE involved in this case. In this instance, I do believe in their case against SLP. After the trial and reading the transcripts and various websites--forums, blogs, etc, etc., I can see how this crime developed in context, but the prosecution can only go by what is presented to them and by the rules of the court present it to a judge and a jury. I can only go by what I have read and what I have read does not exhonerate SLP, IMO, it only proves his guilt even more.

Intro,

These are part of the instructions given to the jury by the judge before the verdict in the guilt phase:

However, a finding of guilt as to any crime may not be based on circumstantial evidence unless the proved circumstances are not only, one, consistent with the theory that the defendant is guilty of the crime, but, two, cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion.

Further, each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance on which the inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also, if the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count permits two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant's guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation that points to his guilt.

******

IMO the jury did not follow these instructions.

[marlene]

And the Jury was given false and misleading information from Cheng and Devore.

Someone said that Devore is the expert on Conner's age. NO, he is not. He is an expert on using sonograms to asses the age of a living fetus inside a living woman. Dr. Galloway is the expert on assessing the age of a dead fetus outside the woman's body.

Neither is Devore the expert on determining Conner's age on December 23 -- Laci's doctors are the experts for that, and as recorded on her medical chart, they concluded she was 32w. Interesting, isn't it, that Devore rejected Laci's sonogram, but that is exactly the procedure he used in measuring Conner's bone. Such a fraud!

Even with the false info from Devore, the jurors could have believed Galloway. Probably the only reason they didn't is because of where the bodies were found. Here enters Cheng, with his lies about the storm's intensity and duration, and Distaso lying about how a debris line is formed.

I'm still waiting for that data from the NOAA and SFPORTS, Intro.

[JackIsBack]

Intro- Just curious--Is there any part of the prosecution case that you do not believe?

Jane,

First of all, the prosecution put forth a circumstantial evidence case brought upon by the investigation by all LE involved in this case. In this instance, I do believe in their case against SLP. After the trial and reading the transcripts and various websites--forums, blogs, etc, etc., I can see how this crime developed in context, but the prosecution can only go by what is presented to them and by the rules of the court present it to a judge and a jury. I can only go by what I have read and what I have read does not exhonerate SLP, IMO, it only proves his guilt even more.

[JackIsBack]

Sorry... I made a huge post above and somehow it was lost.... I will have to re-write it later.