Was Scott Peterson Wrongfully Convicted?

[Wudge]

[QUOTE=Wudge;8848744]

ME stated his opinion that the tape-like material was debris that had become associated with the body. He also testified that Laci went into the water with Conner inside, where he remained until he was expelled a few days before washing ashore ( paraphrasing). Criminalist testified that the bow-type knot was not tightly tied, and the tape-like material was similar to debris collected near Laci Peterson's remains, that her research indicated it was twine used in packing & fishing industry, that it did not match the duct tape found on Laci's remains ( paraphrasing). Hydrologist testified about wind, velocity, tidal movement, long/short waves. ( paraphrasing). I think the jurors could have easily concluded that Conner became entangled in ocean debris ( after expulsion from his mother's body, before washing ashore)
JMO, especially as defense chose not to bring experts who contradicted or challenged the findings of State witnesses..JMO


As I have said and you have agreed "no one explained the when and where for the how. If no explanation, then certainly no reasonable explanation."

[JustMyOpinion]

Isn't it interesting.

None of us were present for the whole trial AND all the exhibits. I can say this as a fact because some of the exhibits have still not been made public, and some of the in-camera testimony is still sealed.

The accused is presumed innocent until the evidence presented to the jury overcomes the presumption and the jury finds the accused guilty. While I cannot speak for the others that feel Scott is guilty, I can tell you all that the evidence that I was able to see convinced me of Scott's guilt. Since Scott started out innocent, logically that means that I have made a proper judgment based on the evidence and my interpretation thereof, since I have seen enough to change my position FROM innocent TO guilty.

The NGs are in a curious position, though. They also have not seen all the evidence, as discussed above. I can understand that the evidence they HAVE seen does not convince them, however, logically they MUST admit that there could be evidence they have NOT seen that could be convincing. For if they maintain that there is NO evidence that will EVER convince them of Scott's guilt (and boy, do I hear that a lot) they admit their bias and prejudice against the People, and therefore disqualify themselves from sitting in objective judgment. They have determined their position without all the facts!

I'm in agreement, Adnoid!

[thinkaboutit]

[QUOTE=Wudge;8848744]

ME stated his opinion that the tape-like material was debris that had become associated with the body. He also testified that Laci went into the water with Conner inside, where he remained until he was expelled a few days before washing ashore ( paraphrasing). Criminalist testified that the bow-type knot was not tightly tied, and the tape-like material was similar to debris collected near Laci Peterson's remains, that her research indicated it was twine used in packing & fishing industry, that it did not match the duct tape found on Laci's remains ( paraphrasing). Hydrologist testified about wind, velocity, tidal movement, long/short waves. ( paraphrasing). I think the jurors could have easily concluded that Conner became entangled in ocean debris ( after expulsion from his mother's body, before washing ashore)
JMO, especially as defense chose not to bring experts who contradicted or challenged the findings of State witnesses..JMO


I agree with your summary - except you have left out the fact that Kyo did testify that there was a knot - under the loose bow like knot - that was "pretty tight".

HARRIS: Showing you 250 G (sic), does this show the left end of that material in the photographs after you've taken the bow out?

KYO: That’s correct. And you can see there's a -- a knot. This is a very tight overhand knot that's left after the bow is taken out.

HARRIS: And that particular knot, did it have anything to do with that bow?

KYO: No.

HARRIS: Did you ever try to or attempt to take or take that knot out of the twine?

KYO: I didn't try to unknot that one because pretty tight.

HARRIS: It was pretty tight?

KYO: Right.


When Kyo talks about this knot - he is looking at this picture:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/253G.JPG

IMO, this is not simply a knot in the line - as there are two lines protruding from the right side of the knot. Do you agree that those two lines are the lines that formed a loop around Conner's neck - and is what Dr. Peterson cut?
Do you think my theory is possible? Does anyone think that what I proposed is physically possible?

[Wudge]

[QUOTE=JustMyOpinion;8848750]


I agree with your summary - except you have left out the fact that Kyo did testify that there was a knot - under the loose bow like knot - that was "pretty tight".



When Kyo talks about this knot - he is looking at this picture:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/253G.JPG

IMO, this is not simply a knot in the line - as there are two lines protruding from the right side of the knot. Do you agree that those two lines are the lines that formed a loop around Conner's neck - and is what Dr. Peterson cut?
Do you think my theory is possible? Does anyone think that what I proposed is physically possible?


You are referencing a post that is not mine.

[thinkaboutit]

Isn't it interesting.

None of us were present for the whole trial AND all the exhibits. I can say this as a fact because some of the exhibits have still not been made public, and some of the in-camera testimony is still sealed.

The accused is presumed innocent until the evidence presented to the jury overcomes the presumption and the jury finds the accused guilty. While I cannot speak for the others that feel Scott is guilty, I can tell you all that the evidence that I was able to see convinced me of Scott's guilt. Since Scott started out innocent, logically that means that I have made a proper judgment based on the evidence and my interpretation thereof, since I have seen enough to change my position FROM innocent TO guilty.

The NGs are in a curious position, though. They also have not seen all the evidence, as discussed above. I can understand that the evidence they HAVE seen does not convince them, however, logically they MUST admit that there could be evidence they have NOT seen that could be convincing. For if they maintain that there is NO evidence that will EVER convince them of Scott's guilt (and boy, do I hear that a lot) they admit their bias and prejudice against the People, and therefore disqualify themselves from sitting in objective judgment. They have determined their position without all the facts!

On the flip side - I have heard G's - even on this board - say that nothing will ever convince them that Scott is innocent.

I can't imagine that any of the sealed exhibits (i.e. the autopsies, cell phone records, etc.) would contain anything that could convince me of Scott's guilt. I'm certainly not saying nothing would convince me - but I can't think of anything that was presented at trial - that I haven't seen that could convince me.

What exactly is in-camera testimony - can you give me an example?

[thinkaboutit]

You are referencing a post that is not mine.

You're right - sorry about that - this quote thing must not be working properly - because when you quoted my post just now - it quoted it as being JustMyOpinion's post.

[JustMyOpinion]

[QUOTE=thinkaboutit;8848766]On the flip side - I have heard G's - even on this board - say that nothing will ever convince them that Scott is innocent.

QUOTE]

Speaking for myself, all of the evidence brought forward at trial proved Scott's guilt beyond my own reasonable & lingering doubt. I've seen no evidence brought by anyone since the verdict that has changed my own mind. JMO

[thinkaboutit]

On the flip side - I have heard G's - even on this board - say that nothing will ever convince them that Scott is innocent.



Speaking for myself, all of the evidence brought forward at trial proved Scott's guilt beyond my own reasonable & lingering doubt. I've seen no evidence brought by anyone since the verdict that has changed my own mind. JMO


There has not been any evidence brought by anyone since the verdict - to my knowledge - that has been made public. Any new evidence - you will not hear about until if/when Scott is granted a new trial.

[thinkaboutit]

Not me. I could change my mind if there was substantial new evidence that contradicted, and was more convincing, than what I have seen so far. Arguments about the burglars are going nowhere, though.

I believe you ;)



But think about it - what you're saying is "I don't know what the sealed evidence is but I can tell you it won't change my mind". How can you say that before you know what it is?

No - I was referring to the exhibits. Even the sealed ones - we know what they were - we just can't SEE them. I didn't say "I don't know what the sealed evidence is but I can tell you it won't change my mind" - I said I couldn't THINK of anything that was presented at trial - that I haven't seen (because it was sealed) that would convince me that Scott was guilty. Again - I was referring to the exhibits - sorry if I wasn't clear on that.



Yes - testimony/discussions/evidence presented outside the Jury's presence, mainly in this case the discussions in the Judge's office surrounding the dismissal of the jurors. It goes to the assertion of an unfair trial - beyond what's been released we don't know the full story surrounding the dismissal of jurors, so we really cannot logically say they were improperly dismissed. Some people say Scott didn't get a fair trial because jurors were replaced, I say we cannot say that and I assume the replacements were proper absence evidence they were not.

But if we are talking about things that could convince me that Scott was guilty - discussions regarding removal of jurors aren't going to do that. Those discussions are relevant when discussing whether he received a fair trial or not - yes - but not in terms of his guilt.

Now if there was some type of evidence that the prosecution had - that Delucchi ruled as inadmissable - that might be something that could convince me - but it would have to be substantial - and I've never heard any rumors or suggestions that the prosecution had anything mind-blowing that they were not able to present.

[Wudge]

SNIP

What exactly is in-camera testimony - can you give me an example?

(good luck)

[accordn2me]

[QUOTE=JustMyOpinion;8848750]

I agree with your summary - except you have left out the fact that Kyo did testify that there was a knot - under the loose bow like knot - that was "pretty tight".

When Kyo talks about this knot - he is looking at this picture:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/253G.JPG

IMO, this is not simply a knot in the line - as there are two lines protruding from the right side of the knot. Do you agree that those two lines are the lines that formed a loop around Conner's neck - and is what Dr. Peterson cut?
Do you think my theory is possible? Does anyone think that what I proposed is physically possible?

I think what you proposed is probably physically possible. Thank you for finally explaining it as clearly as you did.

I apologize for posting all of the testimony like I did but I'm tired of looking it up every time I need to read and look at the pics...one interesting sentence I highlighted in red. Where Dr. P. said it was obvious in the pics the "tape" was moved around......"a transportation issue" that stood out for me....:shrug:

How big was the circumference of the loop?

If there was a 2 centimeter gap between the tape and the neck.....and according to MG a 5 centimeter difference between head/neck size.....the Dr. saying he could see how the head could deform that much was no problem........just thinking....

[thinkaboutit]

I think what you proposed is probably physically possible. Thank you for finally explaining it as clearly as you did.

I apologize for posting all of the testimony like I did but I'm tired of looking it up every time I need to read and look at the pics...one interesting sentence I highlighted in red. Where Dr. P. said it was obvious in the pics the "tape" was moved around......"a transportation issue" that stood out for me....:shrug:

How big was the circumference of the loop?

If there was a 2 centimeter gap between the tape and the neck.....and according to MG a 5 centimeter difference between head/neck size.....the Dr. saying he could see how the head could deform that much was no problem........just thinking....

I meant to thank you for taking the time to post the testimony!!

When he said transportation issue - could he have meant - when Conner was transported from where he was found to the ME's office - the tape was moved? That's my best guess.

I don't know the circumference of the loop - I don't think there was any testimony to that measurement - but I could be wrong.

[accordn2me]

I believe you ;)

No - I was referring to the exhibits. Even the sealed ones - we know what they were - we just can't SEE them. I didn't say "I don't know what the sealed evidence is but I can tell you it won't change my mind" - I said I couldn't THINK of anything that was presented at trial - that I haven't seen (because it was sealed) that would convince me that Scott was guilty. Again - I was referring to the exhibits - sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

But if we are talking about things that could convince me that Scott was guilty - discussions regarding removal of jurors aren't going to do that. Those discussions are relevant when discussing whether he received a fair trial or not - yes - but not in terms of his guilt.

Now if there was some type of evidence that the prosecution had - that Delucchi ruled as inadmissable - that might be something that could convince me - but it would have to be substantial - and I've never heard any rumors or suggestions that the prosecution had anything mind-blowing that they were not able to present.I'm curious are there any CE cases that you can think of where you do believe the person is guilty?

Do you believe you could find someone guilty if all the state had against them was CE?

(This question is for all SIIs.)

[accordn2me]

I meant to thank you for taking the time to post the testimony!!

When he said transportation issue - could he have meant - when Conner was transported from where he was found to the ME's office - the tape was moved? That's my best guess.

I don't know the circumference of the loop - I don't think there was any testimony to that measurement - but I could be wrong.I'm wondering if the "transportation issue" had anything to do with the tightness of the tight knot.............:shrug:

But....this is one of those things where it would be helpful to see the actual photos of the twine/tape on the body as it was found. Since we can't, I have to believe the only experts I had access to, and the jury's apparent decision that the twine was associated with the baby in the water.

MG had plenty of time to find experts or someone to parade in front of that jury and declare there is no way "in a million years" that twine/tape could have washed over Conner's head. He had time to have this "major bombshell" leaked to the public, didn't he? Are we to believe he couldn't be bothered to find one person to testify in court about this? I'm sure there is a very reasonable explanation as to why there was no expert, no witness at all, to testify for the defense on this matter. Don'tcha think?

[thinkaboutit]

I'm curious are there any CE cases that you can think of where you do believe the person is guilty?

Do you believe you could find someone guilty if all the state had against them was CE?

(This question is for all SIIs.)

I can't think of any CE cases off the top of my head right now - LOL! Then again -I'm not feeling very well today. :)

My answer would be yes - I could find someone guilty if all the state had was CE. I prefer not to make generalized comments like that though - I'd rather comment on specific cases. But the CE in this case isn't strong enough for me.....now if Scott had had a history of violent behavior - or childhood behavioral problems - or he had had more than a nick on his knuckle.....

Oh - I just thought of a case - I think the man's name was Garcia - he was seen leaving a casino with a woman who was never seen or heard from again. IIRC - they did find her dna in the backseat (I think he claimed it was planted) - but I think that even without that - I could have still convicted him. History of violent behavior (however I don't think the jury was allowed to hear about that) - seen leaving the casino with her - shows up late to work the next day - with scratches on his face (claimed to have fallen out of a tree while trimming it). Even with no body - yep - guilty.

[accordn2me]

I can't think of any CE cases off the top of my head right now - LOL! Then again -I'm not feeling very well today. :)

My answer would be yes - I could find someone guilty if all the state had was CE. I prefer not to make generalized comments like that though - I'd rather comment on specific cases. But the CE in this case isn't strong enough for me.....now if Scott had had a history of violent behavior - or childhood behavioral problems - or he had had more than a nick on his knuckle.....

Oh - I just thought of a case - I think the man's name was Garcia - he was seen leaving a casino with a woman who was never seen or heard from again. IIRC - they did find her dna in the backseat (I think he claimed it was planted) - but I think that even without that - I could have still convicted him. History of violent behavior (however I don't think the jury was allowed to hear about that) - seen leaving the casino with her - shows up late to work the next day - with scratches on his face (claimed to have fallen out of a tree while trimming it). Even with no body - yep - guilty.Sending good thoughts your way....hope you start feeling better.

I haven't had a lick of energy lately. Too much time on the computer, not eating like I should is probably why.... Elmo is under the weather too... Just got back from the vet. He has demodectic mange. :( For some reason his immune system is not doing what it should. I think it's the pet food. He only wants to eat the poisonous stuff. We're at an impasse. I'm about to cave.....

Back OT: I have the hardest time with CE cases because I'm so gullible. Tell me something I believe it, usually. After 40+ years of getting burned....now I go through spells of being myself and believing everything...to the other extreme and believing nothing and double checking everything anyone says. Believing everything sure is easier...you have more friends (if you care about that)...and I'm much happier than when I'm being super suspicious and paranoid.

I'm one of the most fervent death penalty supporters that you could cross. Yet, I have a hard time with the death penalty for CE cases because of lingering doubt. The CE case that bothers me most is Darlie Routier. I think Darlie is probably innocent but certainly has enough reasonable doubt that she shouldn't be in prison, much less on DR.

Scott Peterson's case is unique 2me in that he doesn't have one thing that gives me even lingering doubt. I am so certain of his guilt after spending the last few weeks on this board, I'd bet absolutely anything that's mine to bet on it....and I am not a gambler. When I first came back looking for something because Brian and he were on the same golf team....and Brian was considering requesting a visit "to do the Christian thing....." I figured I might find something to give me pause and say...maybe it wasn't him.....but there is not one teeny, tiny thing to be found, accordn2me. :read:

[accordn2me]

Thinkaboutit.....this was not a violent death, relatively speaking.

[Wudge]

I can't think of any CE cases off the top of my head right now - LOL! Then again -I'm not feeling very well today. :)

My answer would be yes - I could find someone guilty if all the state had was CE. I prefer not to make generalized comments like that though - I'd rather comment on specific cases. But the CE in this case isn't strong enough for me.....now if Scott had had a history of violent behavior - or childhood behavioral problems - or he had had more than a nick on his knuckle.....

Oh - I just thought of a case - I think the man's name was Garcia - he was seen leaving a casino with a woman who was never seen or heard from again. IIRC - they did find her dna in the backseat (I think he claimed it was planted) - but I think that even without that - I could have still convicted him. History of violent behavior (however I don't think the jury was allowed to hear about that) - seen leaving the casino with her - shows up late to work the next day - with scratches on his face (claimed to have fallen out of a tree while trimming it). Even with no body - yep - guilty.


Other than a confession or an eyewitness, all evidence is fundamentally circumstantial.

The problem in this case is the exact same problem -- as well been established in this forum over and over -- as in Dr. Sheppard's first trial; i.e., the jury both ignored exonerating evidence and convicted the defendant without sufficient evidence.

[thinkaboutit]

Thinkaboutit.....this was not a violent death, relatively speaking.


Well, imo, any murder is a form of violence. If Scott were capable of this - I would expect to see something in his past that would indicate that he is. I would expect SOMEONE to say - ya know - now that you mention it - I didn't think about it at the time but - he did do this. That's very common with cases where people never would have expected the person could commit that type of crime. But with Scott - everyone says this was completely out of character for him - they are stunned. Does Brian feel that way?

LOL - I think I am also that gullible type of personality. The Peterson case has changed me alot regarding that - and I tend to want more proof of everything these days. I've become quite the debater - I am much more outspoken these days than I used to be - and am much better at winning an argument than I used to be - much to my teenager's dismay. :) I like having friends too - my family calls me the diplomat of the family - I can pretty much get along with anyone (well - almost). I like to think I try my best to see both sides of every story.

I agree with you on the Darlie Routier case. I think that was a travesty of justice. Has she exhausted all of her appeals? And like you I have a problem with the death penalty being imposed on CE cases.

Thanks for the good thoughts - sending them back at ya' - hope you start feeling better too!

[Wudge]

Well, imo, any murder is a form of violence. If Scott were capable of this - I would expect to see something in his past that would indicate that he is. I would expect SOMEONE to say - ya know - now that you mention it - I didn't think about it at the time but - he did do this. That's very common with cases where people never would have expected the person could commit that type of crime. But with Scott - everyone says this was completely out of character for him - they are stunned. Does Brian feel that way?

LOL - I think I am also that gullible type of personality. The Peterson case has changed me alot regarding that - and I tend to want more proof of everything these days. I've become quite the debater - I am much more outspoken these days than I used to be - and am much better at winning an argument than I used to be - much to my teenager's dismay. :) I like having friends too - my family calls me the diplomat of the family - I can pretty much get along with anyone (well - almost). I like to think I try my best to see both sides of every story.

I agree with you on the Darlie Routier case. I think that was a travesty of justice. Has she exhausted all of her appeals? And like you I have a problem with the death penalty being imposed on CE cases.

Thanks for the good thoughts - sending them back at ya' - hope you start feeling better too!


Using CE to put someone to death is not a problem. However, to say nothing of insufficient evidence, putting someone to death based on weak CE and/or weak-minded jurors is a problem.

We have a one size fits all system of jurisprudence. Another use of professional jurors could be at the appellate level -- at least for death penalty cases.

[Otter]

Using CE to put someone to death is not a problem. However, to say nothing of insufficient evidence, putting someone to death based on weak CE and/or weak-minded jurors is a problem.

We have a one size fits all system of jurisprudence. Another use of professional jurors could be at the appellate level -- at least for death penalty cases.

Good afternoon Wudge,

I would consider appellate judges to essentially be your professional jurors. They have to look beyond the black and white of transcripts to arrive at their decisions.

No matter how unemotional they may say they are, and no matter how much they deny it, I do believe that their own life experiences have weight, no matter how subconsciously those experiences my sway them.

You keep mentioning professional jurors -- who, IYO, would these people be? What qualifications would you expect? Would these people actually be a jury of one's peers since they would not come from all walks of life? And finally, how would you propose to change the Constitution?

[Wudge]

Good afternoon Wudge,

I would consider appellate judges to essentially be your professional jurors. They have to look beyond the black and white of transcripts to arrive at their decisions.

No matter how unemotional they may say they are, and no matter how much they deny it, I do believe that their own life experiences have weight, no matter how subconsciously those experiences my sway them.

You keep mentioning professional jurors -- who, IYO, would these people be? What qualifications would you expect? Would these people actually be a jury of one's peers since they would not come from all walks of life? And finally, how would you propose to change the Constitution?


Unless you are a member of our Imperial Judiciary that long ago ursurped the power that the Constitution vested solely with the people, you would look to change the Constitution by amendment.

Unfortunately, our Constitution ceased to function as designed over 70 years ago. Today, it serves primarily as a figurehead document, salute, pass by and little more.

Fortunately, there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees a convicted person a right to appeal. So there would be nothing to change there should a State decide to use professional jurors at the appellate level.

[Otter]

Unless you are a member of our Imperial Judiciary that long ago ursurped the power that the Constitution vested solely with the people, you would look to change the Constitution by amendment.

Unfortunately, our Constitution ceased to function as designed over 70 years ago. Today, it serves primarily as a figurehead document, salute, pass by and little more.

Fortunately, there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees a convicted person a right to appeal. So there would be nothing to change there should a State decide to use professional jurors at the appellate level.

Wudge, I know how the Constitution is changed. :rolleyes: I remember actually voting to change an amendment or two. Getting rid of a jury of one's peers was a bit sarcastic in phrasing and I apologize.

That wasn't really rhetorical, but let's get back to my other questions. This is an idea you think is so practical, please give me your thoughts on these professionals. See my above post, thanks!

I'm curious.

[Wudge]

Wudge, I know how the Constitution is changed. :rolleyes: I remember actually voting to change an amendment or two. Getting rid of a jury of one's peers was a bit sarcastic in phrasing and I apologize.

That wasn't really rhetorical, but let's get back to my other questions. This is an idea you think is so practical, please give me your thoughts on these professionals. See my above post, thanks!

I'm curious.


Otter, by saying what you said, it would appear that you do not know how our Constitution is changed today. Other than of statutory necessity, such as a voting age change, amendments are not the medium. Amendments would require at least a hundred million and probably several hundred million votes to gain ratiification.

Why bother chasing an amendment when our Supreme Court long ago usurped the sole power of the people to amend our Constitution. Now our Constitution gets changed with a 5 to 4 vote, not hundreds of millions of votes.

Besides a high skill set in critical thinking, one mandate I would require all professional jurors to possess is to understand how our Constitution was designed to operate. Including a majority of 3L's graduating from top-tier law schools, few people know that answer. Another skill set would be in morality. Yet another skill would be in justice -- justice is not taught in law schools.

"They say that 'Justice' is a blind goddess'
To that fact, most are wise.
The blindfold hides two festering sores,
that once had served as eyes."

[deputydi]

I'm just curious, have you ever taken your own curling iron to a salon? Do you know anyone who has? In all my visits to the salon, I have never seen somebody bring their own curling iron, nor do I know anyone who has. "Their own equipment" :confused: A curling iron is a culing iron.
I don't think that's odd at all. Remember, this was Laci's sister who was doing her hair. I've never seen anyone do it either, but if her sister intended to show Laci how do do this flip, I can see her wanting to try it with her own iron. I've been going to the same hairdresser for 15 years and I blow dry my own hair -- I also take my own brush with me. I don't like his.

[Wudge]

Then the jurors should have to show that they can apply logic during the voir dire. That would eliminate most of the ones who think their opinions or guesses count.

That is another option. Not as good in my mind, but a better process than what is used today.

One thing a professional juror would always know is that in spite of what trial Judges say, they would know they can nullify laws. In other words, professional jurors would know they could spit in the face of the Court and legislatures and nullify bad laws in form or applicability, and there is not a thing that Judges or the legislature can do about it.

Judges tell jurors they do not have that right. Judges do not tell jurors they have that power. This is yet another attempt at a power grab by our judiciary.

[accordn2me]

Except YOU! You didn't post yesterday so I forgot my disclaimer.

Absolutely. I am certain that Gilbert Cano is guilty.

Jim, I was asking about CE (circumstantial evidence) only cases where the defendant steadfastly maintains their factual innocence. Not the defendants that play the 'Yeah, I did it BUT, I deserve a free pass because...' card:

1. I'm retarded
2. I was pissed off
3. I was abused
4. I'm too young to get the death penalty but not too young to murder...
5. I was drunk/high
6. I'm mentally ill

Excuses don't fly with me. At all.

[deputydi]

Unless you are a member of our Imperial Judiciary that long ago ursurped the power that the Constitution vested solely with the people, you would look to change the Constitution by amendment.

Unfortunately, our Constitution ceased to function as designed over 70 years ago. Today, it serves primarily as a figurehead document, salute, pass by and little more.

Fortunately, there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees a convicted person a right to appeal. So there would be nothing to change there should a State decide to use professional jurors at the appellate level.
I don't know what you mean by using "professional jurors at the appellate level". Appellate courts are not fact finding venues and there are no jurors at this level. All the appellate court does is examine the trial record and determine if the trial judge made any errors that could have changed the outcome. Did I misunderstand your meaning?

Professional jurors are a bad idea IMO. Would they be paid by the County and considered County employees? Who would hire them ~ or would they be political appointees? How long would they be required to serve ~ would they have term limits or could they be career jurors? I honestly just don't see this working as it leave the door wide open for corruption. I think our system, although imperfect, works just fine.

[Wudge]

I don't know what you mean by using "professional jurors at the appellate level". Appellate courts are not fact finding venues and there are no jurors at this level. All the appellate court does is examine the trial record and determine if the trial judge made any errors that could have changed the outcome. Did I misunderstand your meaning?

Professional jurors are a bad idea IMO. Would they be paid by the County and considered County employees? Who would hire them ~ or would they be political appointees? How long would they be required to serve ~ would they have term limits or could they be career jurors? I honestly just don't see this working as it leave the door wide open for corruption. I think our system, although imperfect, works just fine.


I think the most absurd thing is to seat a juror in a murder one case based thin or otherwise weak circumstantial evidence, when that juror could not even correctly answer 4 out of 10 applied logic questions.

It's far beyond asinine that we do not measure whether or not a juror has sufficient reasoning skills before they are seated on a jury that will be required to assess circumstantial evidence.

[deputydi]

Absolutely. I am certain that Gilbert Cano is guilty.
<snip>
That is a very tragic story and I understand how some can be angry at his sentence. Please remember that not all cases go to trial ~ most end with some kind of a plea deal. Scott's attorneys could have negotiated for one but it would probably have included some kind of admission from him. I don't think Scott will ever admit to this murder. A guilty plea usually requires the defendant admit to their crime and I just don't see anyone as narcissistic as Scott seemed to be having the courage to do that.

[deputydi]

I think the most absurd thing is to seat a juror in a murder one case based thin or otherwise weak circumstantial evidence, when that juror could not even correctly answer 4 out of 10 applied logic questions.

It's far beyond asinine that we do not measure whether or not a juror has sufficient reasoning skills before they are seated on a jury that will be required to assess circumstantial evidence.
With all due respect, Wudge ~ that doesn't answer my questions.

You believe the CE was thin or weak, but you are in a decided minority. Most people saw plenty of evidence to be convinced BARD. Does that make all of us stupid or illogical?

[accordn2me]

Then the jurors should have to show that they can apply logic during the voir dire. That would eliminate most of the ones who think their opinions or guesses count.
I've heard of cases where jurors (potential) were given a questionaire to fill out. I have no link...don't remember the case...but the questions had to have come from both prosecution and defense, right? So, what's to stop either side from throwing some logic questions in there?

[Wudge]

Does that make all of us stupid or illogical?


Guess.

(chuckle)

[accordn2me]

Ignore the confession. There is still more than enough CE to convict Cano IMO.

If you want a 'perfect' example of a CE case, look at Robert Durst In TX.
If you want a 'perfect' example of a DE case, look at T. Cullen Davis In TX. That would be the first case - I assume for the second case that having the defendant contract to kill a judge and a prosecutor on video and audio tape may be CE and not DE although the 'hitman' officer testified as well.

Ignore the confession! :eek: Dude, I can't believe you wrote that. Well...it is you so...OK. Do you read your posts out loud [aloud];) , like we were instructed to do before we hit the submit button? You don't, do you? (rhetorical question) Go back and read my question...it was not rhetorical...and you might see why your "ignore the confession" statement seems so damn ridiculous 2me.

[deputydi]

Guess.

(chuckle)
:tongue: I should have known better than to ask that question.

[accordn2me]

This is incomprehensible. Did you read THIS before you posted it?
My mentor said that it's rude to ask for what you(I) know the askee(you) doesn't have.......so I won't do that again. What are you asking about?

[accordn2me]

do you see how clairvoyent i'm becoming by the minute.........DON'T CHEW JUDGE ME!

[One2Snoop]

I've heard of cases where jurors (potential) were given a questionaire to fill out. I have no link...don't remember the case...but the questions had to have come from both prosecution and defense, right? So, what's to stop either side from throwing some logic questions in there?

I don't recall if the questionaire was released to the public after the trial was over. Anyone else know?


Questionnaire given to potential jurors for trial of Peterson

By Kim Curtis
ASSOCIATED PRESS

March 4, 2004

REDWOOD CITY – When potential jurors in Scott Peterson's double-murder trial show up at the San Mateo County courthouse today, they should come prepared to answer questions ranging from whether they read Field and Stream magazine and what stickers grace their car bumpers to whether they've ever had an affair or lost a child.

At least 200 residents will be asked to fill out a nearly 30-page questionnaire, answering more than 100 queries about their attitudes toward law enforcement and lawyers, gun ownership, the death penalty and cheating on a spouse.

Authorities allege Peterson, 31, killed his wife in their Modesto home Dec. 24, 2002, because he was having an affair with a massage therapist. They believe he drove her body to San Francisco Bay and dumped it overboard from his boat. He says he went fishing the day she disappeared.

The questionnaire, while reviewed twice in open court, hasn't been made available to the public. Developed by prosecutors and defense attorneys with minor editing by Judge Alfred A. Delucchi, its contents were approved in court Tuesday. snip
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040304/news_1n4laci.html

[attorneywan2be]

In a shallow bay upward force is the key thing. Just to sink the body, some factors need to be considered, such as how the body is positioned.

If it is 'up and down', then the density of the body assists additional weights in overcoming the buoyancy issue. It is the density of an object, not its weight that determines displacement of the surrounding liquid.

When you lay the body out flat, horizontally, the density factor is decreased as the same amount of weight is spread over more area. This causes a body to float easier because buoyancy is helping to raise it up.

Anyone in Crime Library who doubts this can easily can test the theory (please, without weights attached). Just step into a swimming pool feet first in a depth over your head, and you will sink beneath the water (without using either your arms or legs to introduce “propulsion” into the equation). Then lay out flat in the same pool, and you will float.

This is not because you have air in your lungs and a deceased person doesn't, because even when you stepped into the pool feet first, you still had air in your lungs. This is not because you weigh more standing up than you do lying down, because you weigh the same in either situation

Now, regarding buoyancy in general, Archimedes Principle says: "Any object, wholly or partly immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object." Repeat: Any object, wholly or partly immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a FORCE equal to the WEIGHT of the FLUID displaced by the OBJECT. And upward FORCE = the weight of the fluid.

The fluid in this case is water. The weight of water is 62.4 lbs. per cubic foot, or 8.5 lbs. per gallon.

The object in this case is Laci's body. A human body typically (size and shapes vary) will displace 1.5 cu. ft. of water in a vertical position and 4 to 5 cu. ft. of water in a horizontal position.

Returning to our experiment. If you weigh 150 lbs. and step into the water, displacing 1.5 cu. ft. of water when you do, you will be buoyed upwards 93.6 lbs.. Since you weigh 150 lbs., you then subtract 93.6 from 150 to obtain a negative buoyancy of 56.4 lbs., meaning: You sink.

If you were lying down and displacing 4 cu. ft. of water, your buoyancy factor increases. 62.4 * 4 = 249.6 - 150 = 99.6 lbs of positive buoyancy, meaning you float.

Given those simple physics as calculated, it would take roughly 50 lbs of weight to cause a person to sink if the weight were tied to their feet, and roughly 100 lbs. to sink the same body if the weights were divided and were tied to each of the 4 limbs, and the body was horizontal.

Next step is to advance time and decomposition into the equation. As internal gasses expand within the decomposing body, the buoyancy factor will increase requiring more weight to hold the body down. A body is known to bloat to over 3 times its normal size, so now the displacement factor is not 4 cu. ft, but 12 cu. ft. and 62.4 * 12 = 748.8 lbs.

Obviously, Laci’s body did not surface with 748.8 lbs of weight attached to her. But neither did it surface with the 30 lbs. of allegedly unaccounted for cement that Distaso argued in his closing argument was what kept Laci from being found.

(Mom, can I punch his lights out now? Please? Please?)


That makes a lot of sense..I wish the defense called an expert to refute the prosecution theory that Laci's body was weighted down with 4 or 5 anchors

[attorneywan2be]

snip

Returning to our experiment. If you weigh 150 lbs. and step into the water, displacing 1.5 cu. ft. of water when you do, you will be buoyed upwards 93.6 lbs.. Since you weigh 150 lbs., you then subtract 93.6 from 150 to obtain a negative buoyancy of 56.4 lbs., meaning: You sink.

Snip



Wudge, is this mean that if the body was dumped in a vertical position it would sink without attaching weight to it?

[Wudge]

Wudge, is this mean that if the body was dumped in a vertical position it would sink without attaching weight to it?

A dead body will initially sink (assumming air in clothing does not cause it to float). Gases will eventually build up inside the body; it will bloat and float to the surface, After internal organs rupture and gases are released, it will sink again.

[attorneywan2be]

A dead body will initially sink (assumming air in clothing does not cause it to float). Gases will eventually build up inside the body; it will bloat and float to the surface, After internal organs rupture and gases are released, it will sink again.

The water temperature in the bay is in the fifties year round..I would think the decomposition gas will build up in few weeks not 4 months..and we know that Laci's internal organs were missing except for the uterus...so the question is, why would her body float at that point?

[accordn2me]

That makes a lot of sense..I wish the defense called an expert to refute the prosecution theory that Laci's body was weighted down with 4 or 5 anchors
Maybe the defense didn't because they couldn't find one that could/would do that.

[attorneywan2be]

Maybe the defense didn't because they couldn't find one that could/would do that.



Grogan found one.."Dr. Stephens" :

From a Daily News article by Richard Cole

First, said Stephens, the 30 pounds of weights police believe Scott Peterson put on his wife's 153-pound corpse would not have sunk the body.

"Stephens told me in his opinion that 30 pounds would not likely be enough to cause a female of that weight, especially wrapped in plastic causing additional buoyancy from air trapped in the plastic, to go immediately to the bottom," Grogan wrote after his interview with the medical examiner.

"Stephens said he had cases previously where bodies had bloated with decomposition and pulled as much as 80 pounds of weight up with the body surfacing in the bay," the detective wrote.

[Wudge]

The water temperature in the bay is in the fifties year round..I would think the decomposition gas will build up in few weeks not 4 months..and we know that Laci's internal organs were missing except for the uterus...so the question is, why would her body float at that point?

Laci's organs would have ruptured long before April and released all internal gases. Her skeletonized remains would not have floated, but that would not have prevented her remains from being pushed ashore by currents/waves.

[Miss Bootsie]

Laci's organs would have ruptured long before April and released all internal gases. Her skeletonized remains would not have floated, but that would not have prevented her remains from being pushed ashore by currents/waves.

Links to support your statements, Please.

[accordn2me]

Grogan found one.."Dr. Stephens" :

From a Daily News article by Richard Cole

First, said Stephens, the 30 pounds of weights police believe Scott Peterson put on his wife's 153-pound corpse would not have sunk the body.

"Stephens told me in his opinion that 30 pounds would not likely be enough to cause a female of that weight, especially wrapped in plastic causing additional buoyancy from air trapped in the plastic, to go immediately to the bottom," Grogan wrote after his interview with the medical examiner.

"Stephens said he had cases previously where bodies had bloated with decomposition and pulled as much as 80 pounds of weight up with the body surfacing in the bay," the detective wrote.
Is "how much weight it takes to hide a body under the surface of the water" an area of expertise for a medical examiner?

I don't know how experienced you are with things in bodies of water...especially large bodies of water like the bay. Let me say....I'm not very experienced at all. However, since I've been on Kauai, I've been in the ocean in a boat several times. It's hard to see stuff floating out there! I've also watched accounts of people who have fallen overboard and tried to no avail to get the attention of boats passing by.

Think about it...a body floating horizontally face down, or weighted down (or not) would be very hard to see. I would bet it would be more likely that it wouldn't be seen than it would.

IMO, Scott didn't intend to sink Laci to the bottom and have her stay there. He wanted to submerge her below the surface in hopes that she would float out to sea undetected.

[cookiewench]

IMO, Scott didn't intend to sink Laci to the bottom and have her stay there. He wanted to submerge her below the surface in hopes that she would float out to sea undetected.


Yep. I think that's exactly what he had in mind. He wanted her pulled out to sea - being pulled along just beneath the surface. Too much weight and she'd stay where she was forever - waiting to be found.

[accordn2me]

Yep. I think that's exactly what he had in mind. He wanted her pulled out to sea - being pulled along just beneath the surface. Too much weight and she'd stay where she was forever - waiting to be found.
Thanks, CW. Also, I think he overcalculated the weight for the purpose he wanted. I believe that's part of the reason he got caught. That and he didn't get her body in the deep shipping channel where he needed to place it.

You know....that hair in the pliers....the one with the vegetation....I have wondered and wondered about the "vegetation" WTH is it? :confused: How did it get there? Did the defense or prosecution offer theories? Was it just ignored? I find it very curious....

[cookiewench]

I don't remember anything about vegetation in the pliers!

[accordn2me]

I don't remember anything about vegetation in the pliers!
It's in there, cookie! Not only that......iirc.........it's stuck on the hair! :eek:

Look at the pics....do you have a link? The only one I could supply you with would be on the SII site in the People's exhibits guilt phase....

[Luke Davis]

Thanks, CW. Also, I think he overcalculated the weight for the purpose he wanted. I believe that's part of the reason he got caught. That and he didn't get her body in the deep shipping channel where he needed to place it.

You know....that hair in the pliers....the one with the vegetation....I have wondered and wondered about the "vegetation" WTH is it? :confused: How did it get there? Did the defense or prosecution offer theories? Was it just ignored? I find it very curious....

IIRC an expert testified it was grass commonly found in the San Jouquin valley.

[attorneywan2be]

IIRC an expert testified it was grass commonly found in the San Jouquin valley.

Hi Luke..:seeya:

David Harris: My botany is real bad. So did you refer to this as an annual blue grass?
George Hrusa: After looking at this and seeing that it was in the genus poa, I went and looked at spellings I have in the Burem (phonetic) at where I work and I pulled out several specimens of the genus poa that are common plants and that I see on a regular basis that are submitted to me for identification and it matched the very tip of that prow, had the same small kinds of trichomes, little scabious trichome at the bottom of the boat prow underneath the bow that was in poa annua or the genus, the species, annual blue grass would be a common name for it. I did not compare it to the universe of all plants.
David Harris: Okay. Now with regards to this kind of the genus of the annual blue grass, is this a fairly common plant?
George Hrusa: Annual blue grass is one of the most common plants in central and in western California.
David Harris: When you say central California, is there any kind of differences where you find this in central California, say the coastal area?
George Hrusa: This plant is a plant associated with human activities.
David Harris: What do you mean by that?
George Hrusa: Human disturbance, roadways, walkways, gardens, places where the original native soil has been disturbed. Places where people hike. It's on trails. It's particularly common along the coast where it does very well. It likes the mild climate along the coast. It grows very commonly in the central valley in the cool season.
David Harris: And when is that?
George Hrusa: That would be from the first rains in, say, November until it really starts to heat up. Probably the plants are disappearing around April. It would depend on your local microclimate.

-----------------

Mark Geragos: We don't know specifically what area, if at all, it came from in California, correct?
George Hrusa: That is correct.
Mark Geragos: We don't know how it got to wherever it is that it was retrieved, right?
George Hrusa: That is correct.
Mark Geragos: We don't know whether or not it was, I mean we got a confidence level, wouldn't you say about, from one to ten, about a five?
George Hrusa: That it's this species?
Mark Geragos: That it is this particular species.
George Hrusa: Yes, about that.
Mark Geragos: And how many different species that it could be part of?
George Hrusa: In the genus poa worldwide, it has about 500 species.
Mark Geragos: So you've got a confidence level of five, about half, you're kind of half confident that it could be somewhere in 500 types of species?
George Hrusa: There was enough similarity to a group of annual blue grasses that occur in California that I felt confident to narrow it down to approximately one of those five. And three of those have restricted ranges that are usually not plants associated with human activity or relatively uncommon. And then one is in, one is similar to poa ana, but is found primarily in southern California. And it is a relatively uncommon plant even there, and then poa annua is ubiquitous.
Mark Geragos: And the ubiquitous one is the one that you think you've got the highest confidence this falls into?
George Hrusa: This falls into the ubiquitous one, yes.
Mark Geragos: Right. The ubiquitous, meaning it's everywhere?
George Hrusa: Right.
Mark Geragos: Thank you. I have no further questions.

[Chocoholic]

Grogan found one.."Dr. Stephens" :

From a Daily News article by Richard Cole

First, said Stephens, the 30 pounds of weights police believe Scott Peterson put on his wife's 153-pound corpse would not have sunk the body.

"Stephens told me in his opinion that 30 pounds would not likely be enough to cause a female of that weight, especially wrapped in plastic causing additional buoyancy from air trapped in the plastic, to go immediately to the bottom," Grogan wrote after his interview with the medical examiner.

"Stephens said he had cases previously where bodies had bloated with decomposition and pulled as much as 80 pounds of weight up with the body surfacing in the bay," the detective wrote.

Any scuba diver will tell you that if you are of average weight (not too fat) you will need no more that 10% to 15% of extra weight to make one's buoyancy negative (sink) - if you're wearing a neoprene suit (which makes you float). To ensure that Laci was going to sink Scott needed only a little more than 17 - 20 lbs. 30 lbs would certainly have done a handy dandy job (read overkill).

[Luke Davis]

Any scuba diver will tell you that if you are of average weight (not too fat) you will need no more that 10% to 15% of extra weight to make one's buoyancy negative (sink) - if you're wearing a neoprene suit (which makes you float). To ensure that Laci was going to sink Scott needed only a little more than 17 - 20 lbs. 30 lbs would certainly have done a handy dandy job (read overkill).

Strictly speaking you may be right as far as weight. But you are comparing concrete to lead. Imagine tying a 500 pound log to a human body and throwing them in the ocean, they wouldn't sink!

[Chocoholic]

Strictly speaking you may be right as far as weight. But you are comparing concrete to lead. Imagine tying a 500 pound log to a human body and throwing them in the ocean, they wouldn't sink!

This is absolutely true. A log has a longer surface area and is naturally buoyant, unless it becomes waterlogged and we (here) call it a deadhead - great for sinking boats. Concrete? Not so much. Concrete anchors made in buckets, used tires even, barrells etc.

I know of concrete floats, however their surface area is long and wide as opposed to short and round.

If you pull lead through a press often enough so it becomes a long sheet of thin lead, it too will float. :shrug:

There is a very big difference between a concrete float and a concrete anchor. ;)

Concrete float: http://www.easy2diy.com/cm/easy/diy_ht_index.asp?page_id=35720650

Concrete anchor:
http://sebagodock.com/images/mooring-concrete.gif

I've worked with both. The anchors are vastly different from floats. Anchors are incredibly efficient. So are concrete floats. Almost the same material, different shapes.

[Luke Davis]

This is absolutely true. A log has a longer surface area and is naturally buoyant, unless it becomes waterlogged and we (here) call it a deadhead - great for sinking boats. Concrete? Not so much. Concrete anchors made in buckets, used tires even, barrells etc.

I know of concrete floats, however their surface area is long and wide as opposed to short and round.

If you pull lead through a press often enough so it becomes a long sheet of thin lead, it too will float. :shrug:

There is a very big difference between a concrete float and a concrete anchor. ;)

Concrete float: http://www.easy2diy.com/cm/easy/diy_ht_index.asp?page_id=35720650

Concrete anchor:
http://sebagodock.com/images/mooring-concrete.gif

I've worked with both. The anchors are vastly different from floats. Anchors are incredibly efficient. So are concrete floats. Almost the same material, different shapes.

Your expertise is far above mine and perhaps Scott's. Was there any evidence that Scott took measures to get air out of his anchors?

[Synopsis]

While some are defending Scott, I think some others are actually defending the system that hopefully will protect those who are really innocent.

I'm not completely sure how you meant this post to read, but if it was written, the way I interpreted it, I SALUTE YOU!!!

That being said, I was/am a strong believer in the fact that Scott was wrongfully convicted. Not saying he did or didn't do it, because I can't know that....I wasn't there. But because I STRONGLY DO NOT believe the prosecution proved their case against him, I have to say "wrongfully convicted."

I dropped out of discussing Peterson a long time ago, because I felt it had all been said - pro & con. But here I am again, because I am very interested in what's happening with an appeal, and if he will get another trial.

Could someone "short-cut" me to that information if available? Or a brief update? TIA

[Otter]

I'm not completely sure how you meant this post to read, but if it was written, the way I interpreted it, I SALUTE YOU!!!

That being said, I was/am a strong believer in the fact that Scott was wrongfully convicted. Not saying he did or didn't do it, because I can't know that....I wasn't there. But because I STRONGLY DO NOT believe the prosecution proved their case against him, I have to say "wrongfully convicted."

I dropped out of discussing Peterson a long time ago, because I felt it had all been said - pro & con. But here I am again, because I am very interested in what's happening with an appeal, and if he will get another trial.

Could someone "short-cut" me to that information if available? Or a brief update? TIA


IMO, he'll be lucky to get LWOP, not to say that outcome would be good for him. I STRONGLY believe that the prosecution proved their case BARD.

So there! :tongue:

I dropped out too. ITA. :beer:

Ask Marlene. She's "on it".

[adnoid]

...Ask Marlene. She's "on it".

Well, that will certainly be the end of "it".

[Otter]

Well, that will certainly be the end of "it".

Poor "it". "It" is a goner. :seeya: :biggrin:

[adnoid]

Poor "it". "It" is a goner. :seeya: :biggrin:

Well, maybe not gone, but I'm not going to serve on the search party.

[Lavindar]

Grogan found one.."Dr. Stephens" :

From a Daily News article by Richard Cole

First, said Stephens, the 30 pounds of weights police believe Scott Peterson put on his wife's 153-pound corpse would not have sunk the body.

"Stephens told me in his opinion that 30 pounds would not likely be enough to cause a female of that weight, especially wrapped in plastic causing additional buoyancy from air trapped in the plastic, to go immediately to the bottom," Grogan wrote after his interview with the medical examiner.

"Stephens said he had cases previously where bodies had bloated with decomposition and pulled as much as 80 pounds of weight up with the body surfacing in the bay," the detective wrote.


I believe you mean that Richard Cole found one, not Grogan. Dr. Stephens never testified and Cole gave him a list of criteria that was never entered into evidence -- "especially wrapped in plastic" for one thing.

And I believe Kimberly Guilfoyle said on her show that Dr. Stephens told her the complete opposite.

[Sturgeon_Moon]

I believe you mean that Richard Cole found one, not Grogan. Dr. Stephens never testified and Cole gave him a list of criteria that was never entered into evidence -- "especially wrapped in plastic" for one thing.

And I believe Kimberly Guilfoyle said on her show that Dr. Stephens told her the complete opposite.This should be easy to verify.

imo

[Lavindar]

Grogan found one.."Dr. Stephens" :

From a Daily News article by Richard Cole

First, said Stephens, the 30 pounds of weights police believe Scott Peterson put on his wife's 153-pound corpse would not have sunk the body.

"Stephens told me in his opinion that 30 pounds would not likely be enough to cause a female of that weight, especially wrapped in plastic causing additional buoyancy from air trapped in the plastic, to go immediately to the bottom," Grogan wrote after his interview with the medical examiner.

"Stephens said he had cases previously where bodies had bloated with decomposition and pulled as much as 80 pounds of weight up with the body surfacing in the bay," the detective wrote.


Atty, why do you say that Grogan found Dr. Stephens. Dr. Stephens never testified and the article is written in the first person by Richard Cole. Can't you back up your information with trial information? As someone who wants to be an atty, you must realize that nothing can be considered in the first appeal step that was not in the court record. Nothing from the preliminary can be included either. The first appeal is to make sure that the rules were followed. So why bring up this extraneous stuff that does not apply to this trial at all?

Where is the testimony that Laci was wrapped in plastic?

[Lavindar]

Here is a site worth reading written by an attorney and he discusses appeal issues

http://www.jaygaskill.com/peterson.htm

[One2Snoop]

Here is a site worth reading written by an attorney and he discusses appeal issues

http://www.jaygaskill.com/peterson.htm

I completely agree - I followed his blog on the Peterson case from day one - very easy to read and understand IMO.

Not to change the subject but I keep reading the title of this thread, "Was Scott Peterson Wrongfully Convicted?" and I keep saying NO everytime I read that. Just thought I'd let you know. LOL. ;)

[TopGunner]

Lavindar - I love Gaskill. Now there's a guy who's professional and knows what he's talking about. The lawyers who try to be clever and creative, talking in circles in an attempt to confuse the jurors (or us) are old, worn out, and boring.

I especially enjoyed the end:

ISSUES PENDING>>>



Following any death sentence, there is an automatic appeal to the California Supreme Court.



We can expect the Peterson defense team to raise several issues in a motion for a new trial, before the sentence is imposed. Among them, we can expect:

A challenge to the trial court’s dismissal of three jurors;
Various objections to the admission of prosecution’s evidence (think dog sniffing as an example);
The venue issue;
The failure to admit the defense’s attempted forensic boat demonstration;
The alleged juror misconduct that took place when jurors, who were on an approved viewing excursion, rocked the Peterson death boat’
Anything else the defense can think of.


On appeal, we can expect new counsel to raise a number of additional issues, including a challenge based on Mr. Peterson’s trial counsel’s inadequate performance.



It is reasonably safe to predict two things:



These challenges will all fail. :biggrin:
The whole process will take forever and a day.

[Lavindar]

Lavindar - I love Gaskill. Now there's a guy who's professional and knows what he's talking about. The lawyers who try to be clever and creative, talking in circles in an attempt to confuse the jurors (or us) are old, worn out, and boring.

I especially enjoyed the end:

ISSUES PENDING>>>



Following any death sentence, there is an automatic appeal to the California Supreme Court.



We can expect the Peterson defense team to raise several issues in a motion for a new trial, before the sentence is imposed. Among them, we can expect:

A challenge to the trial court’s dismissal of three jurors;
Various objections to the admission of prosecution’s evidence (think dog sniffing as an example);
The venue issue;
The failure to admit the defense’s attempted forensic boat demonstration;
The alleged juror misconduct that took place when jurors, who were on an approved viewing excursion, rocked the Peterson death boat’
Anything else the defense can think of.


On appeal, we can expect new counsel to raise a number of additional issues, including a challenge based on Mr. Peterson’s trial counsel’s inadequate performance.



It is reasonably safe to predict two things:



These challenges will all fail. :biggrin:
The whole process will take forever and a day.

What is refreshing about him, not to belittle his common sense way of talking, is that he is also VERY familiar with CA law and he knows Delucchi having tried cases under him.


I believe the fatal flaw in the defense of Peterson was the showmanship. Had Geragos sat down and worked on reasonable doubt (rather than "Perry Mason Moments" and "Mystery Women" and "homeless people with boats" and concentrated on a plea bargain or the more conventional types of defense, Scott MIGHT have fared better. Instead he went for an "all or nothing" defense that he could not deliver. I think Scott would have fared better with a public defender.

[Mark]

No, Scott was not wrongfully convicted. My only wish is that he would be executed already.

[attorneywan2be]

Atty, why do you say that Grogan found Dr. Stephens. Dr. Stephens never testified and the article is written in the first person by Richard Cole. Can't you back up your information with trial information? As someone who wants to be an atty, you must realize that nothing can be considered in the first appeal step that was not in the court record. Nothing from the preliminary can be included either. The first appeal is to make sure that the rules were followed. So why bring up this extraneous stuff that does not apply to this trial at all?

Where is the testimony that Laci was wrapped in plastic?

But of course it is part of the trial record..

Mark Geragos: Specifically at some point you had talked to a Dr. Boyd Stephens; is that correct? Referring to 17448.
Craig Grogan: Yes, I did talk to him.
Mark Geragos: And who did you know Dr. Boyd Stephens to be?
Craig Grogan: He's the medical examiner for the City and County of San Francisco.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And you, he told you that he had examined numerous bodies from San Francisco Bay during the years he had been employed as the medical examiner, correct? 17448.
Craig Grogan: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he told you that he also took part in some studies in the 70s regarding decomposition of bodies in the Bay, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. He said the reason that they never published that study was because the San Francisco Bay is such a unique system?
Craig Grogan: That’s what he said.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And I assume that the reason, and you put it in your report, that the reason that you asked Dr. Stephens about this is that you had a, once again, theories about Laci Peterson and being put in the Bay; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yeah. The reason I contacted Dr. Stephens is because I was told that he, he had done this research in the Bay, he was an expert on the Bay, and I wanted to give the search teams an idea of exactly what they could expect to be looking for after this much time had gone by.
Mark Geragos: Okay. You specifically described Laci's weight to him as being about a hundred and sixty pounds, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And you suggested that she may be possibly wrapped in plastic and chicken wire?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And this was on April 2nd, was the, yes, April 2nd about 2:00 o'clock; is that right?
Craig Grogan: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And you said that she likely would have been put in the water somewhere near the Richmond Turning Basin; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And the conditions on that date was the southbound water flow of about four knots, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And he specifically told you that in his opinion 30 pounds would not likely be enough to cause a female of that weight, especially wrapped in plastic, causing additional buoyancy from air trapped in the plastic, immediately to go to the bottom, correct?
Craig Grogan: That’s what he said.
Mark Geragos: And he told you that the victim would likely have traveled with the currents for a considerable distance before any exposed weights would catch something on the bottom or the currents would allow the object to stay in one place long enough for weights to begin to sink in the mud, correct?
Craig Grogan: That’s what he said.
Mark Geragos: Okay. He also told you if the body was wrapped in plastic and if it had made it to deeper waters, that it was possible the body would still be in a pristine condition, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he explained that the pressures that come with depth in the water also aid in holding the body together and that the cold water associated with depth reduced the bacterial effects of decomposition, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. He also told you that he did not believe that a weighted, wrapped body would be covered in mud, right? 17450.
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And he also said that the, it would likely be floating off the bottom of the Bay due to gases and air trapped in the plastic, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And he said that a non-wrapped body would be skeletal remains that are disarticulated and likely covered in mud, meaning buried in mud at that point, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. He told you he was aware of cases of bodies that,
<recess due to earthquake>
Mark Geragos: Thank you. Detective, you still have 17450?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And when, Doctor Stephens specifically told you that they he knew of cases where bodies would travel a distance of five miles; isn't that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes, in The Bay.
Mark Geragos: In The Bay, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, this conversation you had with Doctor Stephens on April 2nd, you still, even though you had the information back about the chicken wire, you were still talking about the chicken wire with him at that point; isn't that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes. To give him, basically we talked about the various options. Plastic wrap. We talked about the chicken wire. And I think he made comments on whether an unclothed body, what would happen.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And, specifically, on, by April 2nd, as we went over yesterday, you had already received back all the information that you and I went over the first day we talked, which was that Home Depot or Lowes only cut it in 25 and 50 foot lengths, correct?
Craig Grogan: I think it only comes in 25 or 50 foot lengths from Home Depot, yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And the fact that you had tested the wire cutters and the pliers, and that they came back negative, correct?
Craig Grogan: The ones we tested came back negative, yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: And the fact that the chicken wire was, in fact, 24 feet six inches, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And the fact that you actually saw a cat scratching the trees, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: All of that information was known to you by the 2nd when you talked to Doctor Stephens, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.

[Otter]

But of course it is part of the trial record..

Only because MG cleverly was able to present heresay and basically testified himself.

This testimony tells me that Grogan had questions and went to an expert on bodies in SF Bay. Grogan isn't an expert, he was checking on a theory he had because of the chicken wire that was found.

Craig Grogan: Yes. To give him, basically we talked about the various options. Plastic wrap. We talked about the chicken wire. And I think he made comments on whether an unclothed body, what would happen.

:shrug:

IMO, a very comprehensive investigation.

[JustMyOpinion]

No, Scott was not wrongfully convicted. My only wish is that he would be executed already.

I agree with your opinion that Peterson was not wrongfully convicted. I think he had a well-resourced, very capable defense team and a fair trial and the jury rendered a just verdict. I don't have any wishes for him at all, but it does occur to me that the length of time California DRIs currently spent on death row and the subsequent cost incurred by tax-payers warrants the citizens re-considering keeping the DP as a sentencing option in California...JMO. IF Scott were to be executed soon, it would be far more merciful, IMO.

[Lavindar]

But of course it is part of the trial record..

Mark Geragos: Specifically at some point you had talked to a Dr. Boyd Stephens; is that correct? Referring to 17448.
Craig Grogan: Yes, I did talk to him.
Mark Geragos: And who did you know Dr. Boyd Stephens to be?
Craig Grogan: He's the medical examiner for the City and County of San Francisco.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And you, he told you that he had examined numerous bodies from San Francisco Bay during the years he had been employed as the medical examiner, correct? 17448.
Craig Grogan: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he told you that he also took part in some studies in the 70s regarding decomposition of bodies in the Bay, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. He said the reason that they never published that study was because the San Francisco Bay is such a unique system?
Craig Grogan: That’s what he said.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And I assume that the reason, and you put it in your report, that the reason that you asked Dr. Stephens about this is that you had a, once again, theories about Laci Peterson and being put in the Bay; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yeah. The reason I contacted Dr. Stephens is because I was told that he, he had done this research in the Bay, he was an expert on the Bay, and I wanted to give the search teams an idea of exactly what they could expect to be looking for after this much time had gone by.
Mark Geragos: Okay. You specifically described Laci's weight to him as being about a hundred and sixty pounds, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And you suggested that she may be possibly wrapped in plastic and chicken wire?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And this was on April 2nd, was the, yes, April 2nd about 2:00 o'clock; is that right?
Craig Grogan: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And you said that she likely would have been put in the water somewhere near the Richmond Turning Basin; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And the conditions on that date was the southbound water flow of about four knots, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And he specifically told you that in his opinion 30 pounds would not likely be enough to cause a female of that weight, especially wrapped in plastic, causing additional buoyancy from air trapped in the plastic, immediately to go to the bottom, correct?
Craig Grogan: That’s what he said.
Mark Geragos: And he told you that the victim would likely have traveled with the currents for a considerable distance before any exposed weights would catch something on the bottom or the currents would allow the object to stay in one place long enough for weights to begin to sink in the mud, correct?
Craig Grogan: That’s what he said.
Mark Geragos: Okay. He also told you if the body was wrapped in plastic and if it had made it to deeper waters, that it was possible the body would still be in a pristine condition, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he explained that the pressures that come with depth in the water also aid in holding the body together and that the cold water associated with depth reduced the bacterial effects of decomposition, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. He also told you that he did not believe that a weighted, wrapped body would be covered in mud, right? 17450.
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And he also said that the, it would likely be floating off the bottom of the Bay due to gases and air trapped in the plastic, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And he said that a non-wrapped body would be skeletal remains that are disarticulated and likely covered in mud, meaning buried in mud at that point, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. He told you he was aware of cases of bodies that,
<recess due to earthquake>
Mark Geragos: Thank you. Detective, you still have 17450?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And when, Doctor Stephens specifically told you that they he knew of cases where bodies would travel a distance of five miles; isn't that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes, in The Bay.
Mark Geragos: In The Bay, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, this conversation you had with Doctor Stephens on April 2nd, you still, even though you had the information back about the chicken wire, you were still talking about the chicken wire with him at that point; isn't that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes. To give him, basically we talked about the various options. Plastic wrap. We talked about the chicken wire. And I think he made comments on whether an unclothed body, what would happen.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And, specifically, on, by April 2nd, as we went over yesterday, you had already received back all the information that you and I went over the first day we talked, which was that Home Depot or Lowes only cut it in 25 and 50 foot lengths, correct?
Craig Grogan: I think it only comes in 25 or 50 foot lengths from Home Depot, yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And the fact that you had tested the wire cutters and the pliers, and that they came back negative, correct?
Craig Grogan: The ones we tested came back negative, yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: And the fact that the chicken wire was, in fact, 24 feet six inches, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And the fact that you actually saw a cat scratching the trees, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: All of that information was known to you by the 2nd when you talked to Doctor Stephens, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.

I really don't see the significance of this since Dr. Stephens was not called to testify by Geragos,

[Lavindar]

Only because MG cleverly was able to present heresay and basically testified himself.

This testimony tells me that Grogan had questions and went to an expert on bodies in SF Bay. Grogan isn't an expert, he was checking on a theory he had because of the chicken wire that was found.

Craig Grogan: Yes. To give him, basically we talked about the various options. Plastic wrap. We talked about the chicken wire. And I think he made comments on whether an unclothed body, what would happen.

:shrug:

IMO, a very comprehensive investigation.

ITA Geragos was BEST at getting hearsay information into the record. He also did a lot of testifying himself. Dr Stephens was clearly a local resident and could have testified himself. So if Garegos wants this "valuable" informaon in the record, why didn't he call Dr. Stephens to the stand.

He pulled the same garbage with Grogan testifying to what Scott told Anne Bird. I have to wonder if that informtion can be tossed on the appeal as it is NOT testimony - it is hearsay.

[attorneywan2be]

I really don't see the significance of this since Dr. Stephens was not called to testify by Geragos,


I posted Grogan's testimony regarding his interview with Dr. Stephens in response to what you wrote in your post:


Atty, why do you say that Grogan found Dr. Stephens. Dr. Stephens never testified and the article is written in the first person by Richard Cole. Can't you back up your information with trial information?

[Lavindar]

But of course it is part of the trial record..

Mark Geragos: Specifically at some point you had talked to a Dr. Boyd Stephens; is that correct? Referring to 17448.
Craig Grogan: Yes, I did talk to him.
Mark Geragos: And who did you know Dr. Boyd Stephens to be?
Craig Grogan: He's the medical examiner for the City and County of San Francisco.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And you, he told you that he had examined numerous bodies from San Francisco Bay during the years he had been employed as the medical examiner, correct? 17448.
Craig Grogan: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he told you that he also took part in some studies in the 70s regarding decomposition of bodies in the Bay, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. He said the reason that they never published that study was because the San Francisco Bay is such a unique system?
Craig Grogan: That’s what he said.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And I assume that the reason, and you put it in your report, that the reason that you asked Dr. Stephens about this is that you had a, once again, theories about Laci Peterson and being put in the Bay; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yeah. The reason I contacted Dr. Stephens is because I was told that he, he had done this research in the Bay, he was an expert on the Bay, and I wanted to give the search teams an idea of exactly what they could expect to be looking for after this much time had gone by.
Mark Geragos: Okay. You specifically described Laci's weight to him as being about a hundred and sixty pounds, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And you suggested that she may be possibly wrapped in plastic and chicken wire?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And this was on April 2nd, was the, yes, April 2nd about 2:00 o'clock; is that right?
Craig Grogan: Yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And you said that she likely would have been put in the water somewhere near the Richmond Turning Basin; is that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And the conditions on that date was the southbound water flow of about four knots, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And he specifically told you that in his opinion 30 pounds would not likely be enough to cause a female of that weight, especially wrapped in plastic, causing additional buoyancy from air trapped in the plastic, immediately to go to the bottom, correct?
Craig Grogan: That’s what he said.
Mark Geragos: And he told you that the victim would likely have traveled with the currents for a considerable distance before any exposed weights would catch something on the bottom or the currents would allow the object to stay in one place long enough for weights to begin to sink in the mud, correct?
Craig Grogan: That’s what he said.
Mark Geragos: Okay. He also told you if the body was wrapped in plastic and if it had made it to deeper waters, that it was possible the body would still be in a pristine condition, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And he explained that the pressures that come with depth in the water also aid in holding the body together and that the cold water associated with depth reduced the bacterial effects of decomposition, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. He also told you that he did not believe that a weighted, wrapped body would be covered in mud, right? 17450.
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And he also said that the, it would likely be floating off the bottom of the Bay due to gases and air trapped in the plastic, right?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And he said that a non-wrapped body would be skeletal remains that are disarticulated and likely covered in mud, meaning buried in mud at that point, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. He told you he was aware of cases of bodies that,
<recess due to earthquake>
Mark Geragos: Thank you. Detective, you still have 17450?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And when, Doctor Stephens specifically told you that they he knew of cases where bodies would travel a distance of five miles; isn't that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes, in The Bay.
Mark Geragos: In The Bay, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, this conversation you had with Doctor Stephens on April 2nd, you still, even though you had the information back about the chicken wire, you were still talking about the chicken wire with him at that point; isn't that correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes. To give him, basically we talked about the various options. Plastic wrap. We talked about the chicken wire. And I think he made comments on whether an unclothed body, what would happen.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And, specifically, on, by April 2nd, as we went over yesterday, you had already received back all the information that you and I went over the first day we talked, which was that Home Depot or Lowes only cut it in 25 and 50 foot lengths, correct?
Craig Grogan: I think it only comes in 25 or 50 foot lengths from Home Depot, yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And the fact that you had tested the wire cutters and the pliers, and that they came back negative, correct?
Craig Grogan: The ones we tested came back negative, yes, sir.
Mark Geragos: And the fact that the chicken wire was, in fact, 24 feet six inches, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: And the fact that you actually saw a cat scratching the trees, correct?
Craig Grogan: Yes.
Mark Geragos: All of that information was known to you by the 2nd when you talked to Doctor Stephens, correct?
Craig Grogan: Correct.

Odd, tho, how Cole seems to ignore the part of the testimony where Stephens told Grogan that a body, not encumbered by a tarp would wind up exactly as Laci did.

Tell me that Cole was not on the Geragos payroll. Grogan gave Stephens seveal different scenarios. Cole only published the one that favored the defence

[accordn2me]

I posted Grogan's testimony regarding his interview with Dr. Stephens in response to what you wrote in your post:


Atty, why do you say that Grogan found Dr. Stephens. Dr. Stephens never testified and the article is written in the first person by Richard Cole. Can't you back up your information with trial information?Let me repsond:

The testimony you posted supports the prosecution, IMO.

[Lavindar]

Let me repsond:

The testimony you posted supports the prosecution, IMO. This information from Dr. Stephens helps the prosecution even more:

FLADAGER: Do you have handy in front of you a report where you talk to Doctor Boyd Stephens? And I would refer you to page 15449.

GROGAN: Okay.

FLADAGER: Okay. All right. You were asked, you indicated that you asked Doctor Stephens about what you might expect if the body is placed in the San Francisco Bay, correct?

GROGAN: Yes, ma'am.

FLADAGER: And you gave him different ideas of conditions that the body might be in when initially placed in the bay, correct?

GROGAN: Yes.

FLADAGER: One of those hypotheticals was an unwrapped body, correct?

GROGAN: Correct.

FLADAGER: And what did he tell you about that?

GROGAN: He told me that an unwrapped body after a three-month period would likely be skeletal remains, and that those would be disarticulated. And he also told me that, however, if the body was clothed or wrapped, animal activity wouldn't take place where the clothing or wrappings were, and that those areas wouldn't be as rapidly to decompose.

[Miss Bootsie]

Snipped*

GROGAN: He told me that an unwrapped body after a three-month period would likely be skeletal remains, and that those would be disarticulated. [B]And he also told me that, however, if the body was clothed or wrapped, animal activity wouldn't take place where the clothing or wrappings were, and that those areas wouldn't be as rapidly to decompose.

Dr. Peterson stated the same thing in his testimony.

As I've said before, this is why there was no evidence of fish feeding. There was clothing from the belly button down that protected the body from fish feeding.
From the belly button up, there was nothing left to find evidence of fish feeding on.

[Lavindar]

Dr. Peterson stated the same thing in his testimony.

As I've said before, this is why there was no evidence of fish feeding. There was clothing from the belly button down that protected the body from fish feeding.
From the belly button up, there was nothing left to find evidence of fish feeding on. I'd say the fact that she had no soft tissue left IS evidence of marine life feeding as it is GONE

[accordn2me]

I'd say the fact that she had no soft tissue left IS evidence of marine life feeding as it is GONEYeah! There was evidence of fish feeding. They could see nibble marks. The ME testified there was no evidence of fish having removed Laci's head and extremities. IMO, the weight of the anchors did that.

[TopGunner]

Yeah! There was evidence of fish feeding. They could see nibble marks. The ME testified there was no evidence of fish having removed Laci's head and extremities. IMO, the weight of the anchors did that.


A2M - MuWAH!!!! So glad you're back...and yes, you're right, but we'll have to go over this 100 more times like it's never been said before, no doubt.:cuss:

[Mysteri]

To everyone who believes Scott strangled or smothered Laci - what is your opinion on how her ribs were broken? Which according to the forensic anthropologist who testified, the breaks were peri-mortem - meaning at or around the time of death? And it was her 5th and 6th rib - which would have been under her arm - just below the arm pit area. I always found it interesting that the prosecution ignored this fact.

I think it speaks for itself.

Sounds like he kneed her in the chest to hold her down while he was either smothering or strangling her. He called himself 'PudgeBoy' and was heavy set. Breaking her ribs was a result of his heavy weight on her chest area.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/08/12/BAGJ086JMI1.DTL#top


imo

[accordn2me]

To everyone who believes Scott strangled or smothered Laci - what is your opinion on how her ribs were broken? Which according to the forensic anthropologist who testified, the breaks were peri-mortem - meaning at or around the time of death? And it was her 5th and 6th rib - which would have been under her arm - just below the arm pit area. I always found it interesting that the prosecution ignored this fact.Since someone brought up this old post....and I can't remember if I commented or not.....

Have you ever heard of "over prosecuting" a case? It's not a good thing to do. Why should the prosecution have given the breakage of these ribs any courtroom attention?

A slam-dunk is a slam-dunk.....no need to try and shatter the backboard.

[adnoid]

...He called himself 'PudgeBoy'...

That's nothing compared to what I call him.

[adnoid]

...Have you ever heard of "over prosecuting" a case?...

Or the old advice from experienced salesmen: "Don't sell past the close."

[Miss Bootsie]

To everyone who believes Scott strangled or smothered Laci - what is your opinion on how her ribs were broken? Which according to the forensic anthropologist who testified, the breaks were peri-mortem - meaning at or around the time of death? And it was her 5th and 6th rib - which would have been under her arm - just below the arm pit area. I always found it interesting that the prosecution ignored this fact.

The injury was to the left side of the chest area.

Question from niklin: Welcome Dr DiMaio--you were great on Crier today. How do you think Laci got the two broken ribs again?

Vincent DiMaio: One or more blows to the left side of her chest. It could be due to fists. It's more commonly seen in kicks.

http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2004/0707peterson-dimaio.html

[TopGunner]

I think it speaks for itself.

Sounds like he kneed her in the chest to hold her down while he was either smothering or strangling her. He called himself 'PudgeBoy' and was heavy set. Breaking her ribs was a result of his heavy weight on her chest area.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/08/12/BAGJ086JMI1.DTL#top


imo


ITA Mysteri - I always believed he nailed her one, aiming for Conner. The beginning of the end.

[Mysteri]

ITA Mysteri - I always believed he nailed her one, aiming for Conner. The beginning of the end.

He's one cold-blooded dude.

The nautical theme of Conner's nursery must have amused him greatly.
I am amused that his present domicile overlooks the murky, churning Bay.

imo

[TopGunner]

He's one cold-blooded dude.

The nautical theme of Conner's nursery must have amused him greatly.
I am amused that his present domicile overlooks the murky, churning Bay.

imo


Well said Mysteri. Sad, but well said.

[accordn2me]

<snipped> his present domicile overlooks the murky, churning Bay.

imo That's the Karma gods at their finest. :cool:

[adnoid]

...I am amused that his present domicile overlooks the murky, churning Bay...

I hope it haunts him.

[Miss Bootsie]

I hope it haunts him.

I hope it haunts him:beer:

[Heyes]

I would have loved it if one of the reporters that interviewed him had asked him about those phoney diplomas on his wall. I would have loved to hear that story. Then I would have loved to see the reporter pull out the invoice from the complany that printed them up for him. Now that would have been some good TV. Wonder what jackie and janey would have said about that?

[Lavindar]

I would have loved it if one of the reporters that interviewed him had asked him about those phoney diplomas on his wall. I would have loved to hear that story. Then I would have loved to see the reporter pull out the invoice from the complany that printed them up for him. Now that would have been some good TV. Wonder what jackie and janey would have said about that?
and Susan and John - they also spoke out for "the family."