I’m confused. They say there was a tape/rope around the baby’s neck. But the article also says the baby stayed inside Lacey’s body for months, in the water, before being expelled for some unknown reason. The baby’s body had not decomposed much, whereas Lacey’s body was nearly unrecognizable.
Then how did the rope/tape get around the baby’s neck? They say that the baby was an intended victim, but he didn’t even come out until shortly before the body was discovered. Does anyone have an idea what happened here?
if laci’s body had tape/rope all over it, it wouldn’t be beyond the realm of possibility that some of it wrapped itself around the baby when it was expelled. I read somewhere the cord was still attached too.
don’t birds and fish get this plastic six pack binder stuck around their necks and die on occasion?
I guess what I’m saying is that the tape indicated to the investigators that the baby was an intended victim. But how could he be if he was still inside the mom until just before he was found?
Don’t get me wrong…it sure looks like the dad did this. But I don’t think the tape is evidence of that.
I heard last night on the news that before this bit of evidence was leaked to the public, the sealed autopsy reports for both mother and child were agreed to be kept sealed by both defendant and prosecutor, so maybe the findings of tape and rope are a surprise to everyone and are going to open up a whole new can of worms that will alter all past ‘speculations’ on the intended victim and whether the baby was actually in the womb for that amount of time.
Nothing nefarious, just a by-product of high traffic marine conditions.
The baby was in an amniotic sack for a portion of the mother’s decomp. At the bottom of San Fran bay, water temp in the winter will significantly retard or halt decomp. So the babies’ differing decomp can be expected with this (organ liquification with a intact dermus) Upon becoming bouyant, anyone who has spent anytime on the water will tell you that jetsom and flotsom (waterbourne refuse/trash/seaweed etc.) tend to congregate, due to currents, traffic, wind, shoreline. The injury was post mortem, so likely happened at that point as well, which is further evidenced by the fact that the mother’s cervix was intact. Walk along any shoreline, and you will find the debris there is often entangled with other debris, especially in populated areas. Another possibility is that the tape was used to anchor the body, and the infact became entagled during the seperation. I disagree with ABC’s pathologist about the head and legs being removed before she was put in the water. I have seen enough marine and mamelian life washed up on shore to confirm that they more often than not are not intact. I came accross 3 cows after the midwest flooding of the Mississippi. Two were headless and one was only a half, but with a full spinal cord. A deer I found in the San Juan’s was legless. The only human body I ever found was intact, but it was February on the Mississippi, before the shipping traffic. San Fransico bay is a fairly temultuous place. Tides, traffic, and weather would not be kind to a human body.
Right! That’s why I say the baby could not have been the “intended” victim because the tape wasn’t placed around his neck. It just sort of ended up there after he was ejected from the womb.
(from the article)
When asked what the tape on the bodies might mean to the case, Robert Pugsley, a law professor at the Southwestern University School of Law in Los Angeles, told ABCNEWS Radio: "This 8-month-old fetus was the direct intended victim, as well as the mother, of the homicidal activities of the murderer.
“This is a clear indication that the state is perfectly justified — indeed, I think, obliged — to pursue the double-homicide case which they’ve already laid,” he said.
Wouldn’t the baby have been equally decomposed if the “noose” was placed around his neck rather than just catching the baby after it was expelled (some time later)?
I don’t think Scott Petersen isn’t rich. It sure isn’t on the scale of an OJ, who was very wealthy and a major celebrity.
When I first heard about this, I was wondering what the hell was up with it… it doesn’t even make sense. Killing a pregnant woman, especially in this manner, will surely kill the fetus. That, on top of the data provided in this thread, makes the idea that happened after death FAR more plausible to me. The daily papers don’t seem to care, but…
A forensic pathologist interviewed on the NBC Today program today said the fetus had not been long in the water because the genitalia was intact way beyond that of a fetus being in water for three months.
I take a swing at that one Duckster. If the body were at the bottom of the bay, the fetus was essentially in utero in cold storage. The fetus’ internal organs may putrify a bit, fluids may settle to extremeties/posterior/anterior/or sides depending on position, but the epidermus would remain in fairly good condition due to the cold storage environment inside the amniotic sac. Only after the mothers decomp to a point that gasses build up enough to eject the fetus does the sac break and the fetus begin the process of decomp. Had the baby been delivered and they both been dumped in the bay at the same time, the babies decomp would have progressed much further than the mother’s, due to the size. The baby’s condition is more evidence of my pet amniotic theory.
Now, this is all just half educated theories on my part. For all I know, amniotic sacs burst when submerged to a couple hundred feet and the fetus turns plaid, or a host of other situations occur. I’m sure expert witnesses are crawling out of the woodwork as we speak. Truth be told, I suspect that there is scant experience with pregnant cold water decomps, so there may not be much scientific evidence to back up any theory. But from what I have read, my theory seems to fit. I may just look like an idiot when more info comes out, but it’s too intreaguing not to engage in a little gape mouthed speculation at this point.
!st-isn’t it PetersOn? Next-OJ verdict? What? Think about the jury pools in Modesto & downtown LA. BTW, Geragos’ best strategy will be try to move trial to LA- remember the defendant friendly jury pool, that can’t spell DNA? BTW, all trials moved to LA Cty go to downtown LA.
From my research on stillborn children - they don’t decompose in a familiar way. The amniotic sac is sterile, so there is no bacterial action. All the decomposition is enzymatic in nature.
Even in a dead mother, the sac will maintain it’s integrity for some period of time - that will keep the bacteria at bay. The cold water will slow down any enzymatic activity. It seems that a well preserved infant could reside in a badly decomposed body for some time.
At face value I do not doubt what you are saying, and at the same time I don’t agree with it either. That’s only because I lack the capacity to know if what you are saying is accurate. There are probably enough “experts” here to give support to your opinion and justify your remarks, and from later posts this appears to be the case. Fine by me. (Don’t worry. I really had no reason to doubt your opinion. I hope you see what I’m really driving at here.)
However, your opinion here is directed at a limited and select audience. And to some extent, a discerning and intelligent audience.
OTOH, the national TV program I mentioned has a much greater audience of all shapes and sizes. Unfortunately, these teeming minions watching TV this morning will take one forensic pathologist’s opinion and not ask those questions we often pose here. No one will ask that he justify this opinion the way you have done so here. The court of public ignorance, er, opinion will render its verdict without attempting to fully understand all of it.
