Point Isabel

As with Conner, the State relied heavily on the assumption that Laci washed ashore.  Autopsy interpretations and evidence collection were based on this assumption.  Simply put, none of the responding officers, medical personnel, or detectives considered any other possibility.

The State pointed to the barnacles on Laci's body as evidence that she had been in the marine environment of the Bay.  However, barnacles are not evidence that she was "in" the Bay, as barnacles live in the inter tidal regions of the shoreline, which includes the location where Laci was found.

The State produced contradictory evidence.  To explain why she remained submerged and unnoticed for nearly 4 months, and in order to produce the illusion of physical evidence, the State claimed Scott made 4 homemade anchors and attached them to her using the yellow-handled pliers.  Yet, Dr. Peterson testified that she was intermittently wet and then dry, which requires floating.  His explanation for how the disarticulation occurred also requires floating -- he arms and legs were hanging down and moving back and forth from the current action.  This floating action would have placed her at or very near the surface for much of the time she was allegedly in the Bay - and yet not a single person saw her, in spite of the area being very popular for recreational water sports. 

The State's expert, Dr. Ralph Cheng, could not get Laci back to Scott's fishing route, or to the same location as Conner.  Cheng invoked "too many unknowns" to justify ignoring this exonerating inadequacy.

Moreover, the very real possibility exists that Laci could not even have washed ashore -- the water levels produced by the high tides on April 13 and April 14 simply were not deep enough to move her body to where it was found.  And, the wind was not a contributing factor, as two reliable sites report winds from only 3 - 6 mph.  Details