Evidence that points to other suspects [Archive]

attorneywan2be

03-26-2007, 02:47 PM

Let's discuss theories about other suspects..

IMO, there is overwhelming evidence that indicates that the burglars abducted and murdered Laci..

1-According to the defense motion for a new trial, Adam Tenbrink told the defense investigator that Todd approached him on the 24th asking him for help in a burglary that had already started...this tells us that the burglary was interrupted..IMO, Laci's confrontation with Todd was the reason he could not complete the burglary because he had to take care of Laci first....

2-Diane Jackson reported to the police that the burglary took place around 11:40 am on the 24th..and that she saw them removing a safe from the Medinas's house..

3-The police did indeed find the Medinas's safe in Todd's possession...that corroborates Diane's report..

Conclusion:1 + 2 +3= Todd burglarized the Medinas's house on the morning of the 24th..around the same time Laci disappeared...however, something serious happened that compelled him to leave the scene before completing the burglary!! what happened?

4-Lt. Aponte heard a telephone conversation between Shawn Tenbrink and his brother Adam Tenbrink..they were talking about Laci confronting Todd as he was burglarizing the Medinas's house..and that Todd threatened her..

5-"Mr. R" an inmate at Stanislaus county jail told the defense that he had information regarding Laci's ABDUCTION...he gave them few names, when the defense ran those names on their computer database they got the Aponte's tip that they had overlooked...that tells us 2 things: a- Laci was abducted by Todd..b- the Aponte's report was corroborated by an independent source "Mr. R"..and Mr. R's statement was corroborated by the Aponte's report..

Conclusion: 4+5 = On the 24th Laci had a confrontation with Todd that led to her abduction and ultimately her murder...that was the interruption that compelled Todd to leave the scene before completing the burglary..

6-Few days after Laci's disappearance, Deanna Renfro Pawned what I believe was Laci's MISSING Croton watch...to this date this watch is still missing..Deanna Renfro has a criminal records, there is a strong possibility she is connected to the burglars...

Final Conclusion: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7 = the burglars did it..that's my opinion..

Wudge

03-26-2007, 05:11 PM

Detective Grogan read Bates #14765 into the trial record. This is why we know Diane Jackson reported at 4:10PM on 12/26 that she saw three men, a van and a safe in front of the Medina's home at 11:40AM on 12/24.

Before Detective Grogan took the stand, Susan Medina testified that she and her husband did not arrive home from their Xmas trip until after 4:10 on 12/26. Thus, at the time of Ms. Jackson reporting, the Medina’s did not know they had been burglarized and their safe had been taken from their home.

Further, as a result of Diane Jackson’s reported sighting, Officer Steele had a 459 (burglary) recorded as taking place at the Medina’s residence. And this recording of a burglary was made because of Diane Jackson report at 4:10PM on 12/26, which, again, was before the Medinas knew their home had been, indeed, burglarized.

Obviously, Diane Jackson could not possibly have known a safe was stolen from the Medina's house; i.e., unless she had seen it with her own eyes at 11:40AM on 12/24.

Moreover, Susan’s Medina’s testimony also established that because of their business, the Medina's had a security mailbox and a good sized safe -- the safe required three men to carry it into their home.

She also testified that when they had outgoing mail, they would lift a flap and place their outgoing mail into their mailbox. And that when the postman, Mr. Graybill came to their home, the design of the mailbox required him to first remove any outgoing mail before he was able to slip the incoming mail into a special slot.

Susan Medina further testified that she had a lot of outgoing mail on 12/24, and that it was placed in their mailbox for pick-up just before they left on their trip at just around 10:30AM on 12/24. Therefore, the postman, Mr. Graybill, would have needed to remove that outgoing mail before he could have delivered any incoming mail on 12/24.

At this time, it is important to note that, per the testimony in the trial record, it is undisputed that the Medina's security mailbox made it impossible for a passer bye to see any incoming mail. However, Officer Hicks provided testimony as to the burglars’ storyline, and Steven Todd's storyline was that he targeted the Medina's residence, because, as he passed by their home, one of the Medina's cars was gone and mail was visible in their mailbox.

Now, we know that Steven Todd could not have seen any incoming mail, because that is physically impossible. Further, we know that Susan Medina said they had left a lot of outgoing mail just before they left on their trip around 10:30AM on 12/24. Further still, we know that Steven Todd says that he saw mail in the Medina's mailbox as he passed by their residence. However, if Steven Todd saw mail in the Medina's mailbox, it had to be outgoing mail.

Additionally, we know that on 12/24, the postman, Mr. Graybill, was delivering his mail that morning between 10:35AM to 10:50AM. Thus, we know too that after 10:50AM on 12/24, there would have been no outgoing mail that Steven Todd could have seen that day. And we know that there was no mail delivery on 12/25, and we know that the Medina's were away on 12/25. So the Medinas could not have placed any outgoing mail in their mailbox that day.

Further yet, from Officer Hick’s testimony, we know that the burglar’s storyline is that they removed the safe from the Medina's home in the early morning hours on 12/26 -- somewhere in the timeframe of 6:30AM to 7:30AM. Hence, we know that the burglars could not have seen any mail activity, whatsoever, that occurred on 12/26, and we know that the Medina's did not even arrive back home before 4:10PM on 12/26.

Given all of the above, we know that if Steven Todd saw mail in the Medina's mailbox, it had to be outgoing mail. And the punch line is that the only time where there would have been any outgoing mail to see on either 12/24, 12/25 or 12/26 was between 10:30AM (the time that Medina’s left on their trip) and 10:50AM on 12/24.

Therefore, Steven Todd's own storyline places the burglars right at the Medina's home between 10:30AM and 10:50AM on 12/24 -- the time when Laci was supposed to have been walking McKenzie.

Summing up, Steven Todd's own storyline supports the accuracy and sensibility of Diane Jackson's report that she made at 4:10PM on 12/26, wherein she reported seeing a safe in front of the Medina’s home around 11:40AM on 12/26. And, as a reminder of the kicker I previously noted, Diane Jackson's report was made before the Medina's even arrived back home to find out that burglars had taken their safe and that Officer Steele already had a 459 (burglary) recorded for their home.

These multiple impeachments of the burglars’ storyline are proof-positive that the burglary took place on 12/24 instead of on 12/26 as the burglars claim. And if the burglars lied about the 12/26 date, it clearly gives support to Lieutenant Aponte’s reporting that he heard a conversation that said an inmate, Steven Todd, had threatened Laci.

Finally, in his closing argument, Distaso never claimed that the burglary took place on 12/26, never.

Given their criminal history, the burglars should not only be considered alternative suspects but prime suspects, for they would have had means, motive and opportunity.

One2Snoop

03-26-2007, 06:12 PM

Let's discuss theories about other suspects..

IMO, there is overwhelming evidence that indicates that the burglars abducted and murdered Laci..

[QUOTE]Lawyers for Scott Peterson, whose double-murder trial began June 1, have suggested that his wife could have been abducted while interrupting the crime.

"My answer to that is, I didn't have nothing to do with it," Pearce said. "I never knew she was gone. I never even heard of her till all this s--- happened."
Peterson's attorneys are scheduled Monday to begin calling witnesses. In addition to the burglary theory, the attorneys have said vagrants in Dry Creek Regional Park might have abducted Laci Peterson.

Pearce, who turns 46 on Thursday, said Steven Wayne Todd awakened him early Dec. 26, 2002 -- two days after the pregnant woman was reported missing. Pearce said he drove Todd in a Chevrolet Corsica to Covena Avenue about 6:30 a.m. and parked in front of a house.

Todd already had been to the house more than once the night before, Pearce said. The residents were away on a holiday trip. Todd used a dolly to bring a safe to the car, he said.

It yielded about $50,000 worth of jewelry and some weapons, much of which later was recovered.

"I didn't get out of the car," Pearce said. "I pulled up, he threw it in the car and we came back home."

The men were arrested Jan. 2, 2003, after police received an anonymous tip. The next day, Pearce answered about 10 polygraph questions administered by police, some having to do with Laci Peterson, he said.

"(The polygrapher) asked if I knew anything about her disappearance, and I told them 'no,'" Pearce said. "She said I passed it."

Statement backs police position
Police always have maintained that there was no link between the burglary and Laci Peterson's disappearance.

http://trialblog.tripod.com/

thinkaboutit

03-26-2007, 06:31 PM

One2Snoop all your quotes were from Pearce - and I agree with you - I don't think Pearce was involved in the abduction of Laci Peterson - Todd is another story.

One2Snoop

03-26-2007, 06:40 PM

One2Snoop all your quotes were from Pearce - and I agree with you - I don't think Pearce was involved in the abduction of Laci Peterson - Todd is another story.

How could he be. Pearce said Todd had been there the day before - which would be Christmas day. And from what the above says it doesn't sound like Todd even had a car - why else would he contact Pearce? It sounded like he needed a vehicle to transport the goods, IMO.

One2Snoop

03-26-2007, 06:46 PM

Burglary suspects
didn't takeLaci
April 21, 2003

A burglary across the street from Laci Peterson's home had nothing to do with the
Modesto woman's disappearance, police confirmed Friday. The announcement coincided
with police saying they had arrested two suspects in the burglary and determined that
they were not involved in the missing-person case.
Detective Doug Ridenour said the men were booked late Thursday at
Stanislaus County Jail. Chief Deputy District Attorney John Goold would not
comment on whether the two men who pleaded guilty to charges related to a
burglary at a home in the Petersons' neighborhood would be called to testify.

Police arrested burglary suspects Steven Wayne Todd, 36, and Donald Glenn Pearce,
44, on Jan. 2 after receiving an anonymous tip, according to police documents and
the two were far more cooperative than suspects usually are with police.

"It was bad luck on their part," Det. George Stough said. (Steven Todd) said he
was scared that he was going to be associated with Laci's disappearance."

Thursday, state parole officers received a tip from someone who directed police
to Todd and Pearce, Stough said. They gave numerous statements and facts that
checked out, convincing police that the two men were telling the truth.

Todd told investigators that he traveled the La Loma area often and recognized a home that
looked empty the morning after Christmas. He said he and Pearce entered the home about
4 a.m. and stayed for about 3 1/2 hours, Stough said. Police listed the time of the burglary
at the home of Susan Medina on Covena Avenue in the La Loma neighborhood at
6:30 a.m. Dec. 26. Attorneys for both sides refused to say whether there was
evidence Todd and Pearce were in the neighborhood before that.
snip
http://www.findlaci2003.us/burlary-suspects.html

thinkaboutit

03-26-2007, 07:27 PM

How could he be. Pearce said Todd had been there the day before - which would be Christmas day. And from what the above says it doesn't sound like Todd even had a car - why else would he contact Pearce? It sounded like he needed a vehicle to transport the goods, IMO.

One2Snoop why should we take what convicted felons say on their word? Which is exactly what MPD did. Todd said several things that were proven untrue. He said he saw mail in the Medina's mailbox - as Wudge said - it was undisputed that the only possible mail he could have seen in the Medina's mailbox was outgoing mail - which was gone by 10:50 a.m. on the 24th. He also said the Medina house looked empty because one car was gone. There was another parked in their driveway. How can one assume no one is home with a car in the driveway? Isn't it more likely that he saw the Medina's packing their other car up the morning of the 24th? He also told MPD that he had involved Pearce in the entire burglary - Pearce says no way - he only pulled up to the front of the house - the safe was already outside and Todd loaded it up and drove away. I'm sure you're familiar with the list of items Todd claims to have transported via his bicycle. A rolling tool box with tools in it that Susan Medina testified was too heavy for her husband to pick up, another 24-inch tool box full of tools, weedeater, electric saw, just to name a few. This burglary did not happen the way Todd claimed it did.

Are you familiar with the Aponte tip? The Tenbrink brothers were talking on the phone amongst themselves (or so they thought) about how Laci had interrupted Todd and Todd verbally threatened her. How can that be discounted? Even if Todd didn't have something to do with Laci's demise - the statement by Tenbrink that Todd saw Laci and vice versa - completely exonerates Scott.

attorneywan2be

03-26-2007, 07:27 PM

Toggie

03-26-2007, 09:55 PM

Unfortunately, sometimes police do clear the wrong people..

Please explain, why would 2 INDEPENDENT sources give details that would lead to the burglars being Laci's abductors..it couldn't be that both of those sources were coincidentally lying saying the same thing..and why would a Lt. Aponte lie?

Lt. Aponte reported that an inmate and his brother talked about Laci confronting Todd as HE WAS BURGLARIZING the Medina's house..
Then Mr. R ( atotally independent source) provided information that corroborated that report..

In addition to that, there is a 3rd source: Diane Jackson reported seeing the burglars removing the safe at 11:40 am on December 24th...
The safe was indeed found in Todd's possession...mind you, Diane reported the burglary BEFORE the Medinas returned to their home..

Add to that, there was no way for the burglars to commit the burglary on December 26th, police cars..media cars were all over the place..IMPOSSIBLE..!

Why would the MPD clear Todd of Laci's disappearance? If they thought for one minute Todd was involved or knew something, why not grab him and bring him in for questioning? Why go through all the trouble surveilling Scott? Scott didn't have a prior record, Todd did. Is it possible the MPD knew Scott was involved in "something"? I think so...There was a mighty big reward involved, I think if Pearce knew Todd did something to Laci or vice-versa, they would have turned on each other after striking a deal.

I honestly don't think Todd had anything to do with Laci's disappearance. I think Scott either did it or paid someone to do it for him.

IMO

Wudge

03-26-2007, 09:59 PM

attorneywan2be

03-27-2007, 03:29 AM

Why would the MPD clear Todd of Laci's disappearance? If they thought for one minute Todd was involved or knew something, why not grab him and bring him in for questioning? Why go through all the trouble surveilling Scott? Scott didn't have a prior record, Todd did. Is it possible the MPD knew Scott was involved in "something"? I think so...There was a mighty big reward involved, I think if Pearce knew Todd did something to Laci or vice-versa, they would have turned on each other after striking a deal.

I honestly don't think Todd had anything to do with Laci's disappearance. I think Scott either did it or paid someone to do it for him.

IMO

Note: you didn't address the points I made.. I hope someone would answer my questions before concluding that the burglars had nothing to do with it..

As to your question, let me start by asking you...have you ever heard of police releasing the real killer/rapist and arresting the wrong person?? if the answer to this question is "yes"..then I rest my case..if your answer to the question is "no"...then I suggest you read about wrongful convictions..read about cases where the police had the right man but decided to release him because they mistakenly concluded he was not involved.....police do make mistakes....

Toggie

03-27-2007, 07:50 AM

Note: you didn't address the points I made.. I hope someone would answer my questions before concluding that the burglars had nothing to do with it..

As to your question, let me start by asking you...have you ever heard of police releasing the real killer/rapist and arresting the wrong person?? if the answer to this question is "yes"..then I rest my case..if your answer to the question is "no"...then I suggest you read about wrongful convictions..read about cases where the police had the right man but decided to release him because they mistakenly concluded he was not involved.....police do make mistakes....

I realize police do make mistakes...after all they are human. Todd & Pearce were petty criminals. Todd was out looking for stuff to steal to buy his kids Christmas presents IIRC. Todd was on a bike. Todd had to go looking for Pearce in order for him to have a car to load up his stolen goods....I honestly don't think they were involved...The MPD cleared them but could never seem to get past Scott.

Beebee

03-27-2007, 09:07 AM

Are you familiar with the Aponte tip? The Tenbrink brothers were talking on the phone amongst themselves (or so they thought) about how Laci had interrupted Todd and Todd verbally threatened her. How can that be discounted? Even if Todd didn't have something to do with Laci's demise - the statement by Tenbrink that Todd saw Laci and vice versa - completely exonerates Scott.

I totally agree.

There was a lot to work with here, but for the MPD and Geragos it was too little too late-- and nobody put it together for Delucchi. I fully believe Steve Todd saw Laci after Scott left.

Delucchi used the timeline of Karen Servas to turn down the motion for a new trial which was in part based on the Aponte information.

Beebee

03-27-2007, 09:13 AM

First of all SII is filled with lies and the transcripts were edited to suit Marlene Newell's

Marlene Newell did many, many people a huge service by making the transcripts available for download. She spent MONTHS buying, collecting and preparing them, and it had nothing to do with editing content. It had to do with formatting. She is not in "hiding", you are being ridiculous.

Don't spread misinformation, and stop the personal attacks. This forum thankfully is heavily moderated and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Beebee

03-27-2007, 09:32 AM

Speaking of Aponte, a reporter from the New York Post e-mailed me a couple days ago wanting info on the Tenbrink brothers. I e-mailed her the Aponte report. She said she was "reading about the case on-line" and became interested in the Tenbrinks. Interesting because now that I think about it, where is there info on the Tenbrinks? Anyhow- I'll post the Aponte report in case anyone wants to read it.

Person Interviewed: Lt. Xavier Aponte
Employment: California Department of Corrections
Position: Lieutenant
Address: California Rehabilitation Center, PO Box 1841, Norco, CA 92860
Telephone: (951) 273-2967

Results of Interview

On 12/01/2004, at 9:40 AM, Lt. Xavier Aponte was interviewed in his office at California Rehabilitation Center regarding a recorded conversation between inmate Shawn Tenbrink and his brother Adam Tenbrink that occurred in the month of January 2003. Lt. Aponte was asked if the interview could be taped recorded and he said that he preferred that it not be recorded. Lt. Aponte provided the following information.

Lt. Aponte has been employed by the State of California, Department of Corrections for 18 years. From April 26, 1999 until February 2003, he was assigned to the Investigations Unit at California Rehabilitation Center. On February 18, 2003 he had a job change to Watch Commander.

California Rehab Center records inmate telephone calls to outside parties via the Inmate Monitoring and Recording System abbreviated IMARS. Inmates are allowed to place one (1) collect call per day for 15 minutes to outside parties. When the call is placed and connected a recording comes on at the beginning advising the party called that call is an inmate at a California Correctional Facility and that the call is monitored (recorded). The IMARS tapes used to be recycled within 30-60 days when the system was originally installed because the tapes were expensive and the budget limited. With an expanded budget, more tapes were purchased so that recordings could be kept one (1) year. Sometime after January 2003, the IMARS was changed to a new system whereby it became easier to retrieve recorded messages over a longer period of time. The old system was basically just a recording system and if the tape was recycled or lost then the recorded conversation was permanently lost. On the new system, it is possible to retrieve the recorded conversation from a company back East.

Lt. Aponte first became aware of Shawn Tenbrink talking about Laci Peterson within a couple weeks of her missing. Shawn was talking about Laci missing while he was out in his housing unit. A housing staff person left a message on Lt. Aponte’s voice mail and he immediately called the Modesto Police Department Hotline. He called a second time within the same week because he did not receive a call back from his first telephone call. Lt. Aponte said it was at least a week before anyone got back to him. Lt. Aponte said a detective called him back and arrangements were made for the detective to interview Shawn Tenbrink. Lt. Aponte believes that it was after he spoke to the detective that he listened to the recorded conversation between Shawn Tenbrink and his brother Adam Tenbrink. To the best of his recollection, Adam Tenbrink talked to Shawn Tenbrink about Laci Peterson missing and mentioned that that Laci happened to walk up while Steven Todd was doing the burglary and Todd made some kind of threat to Laci.

Lt. Aponte did not recall the name of the detective, however when asked about the names Craig Grogan, Al Brocchini, Mark Smith and Owens, Lt. Aponte said Grogan sounded familiar. Lt. Aponte said he recalls the names (black out… looks like two names) and Steve Todd from the recorded telephone conversation. The telephone call lasted about 3-4 minutes.

The detective from MPD came down to California Rehabilitation Center and interviewed (blacked out) within the first couple of weeks from his first call to the MPD hotline. Lt. Aponte did not recall the date of the interview. When Shawn Tenbrink walked into Lt. Aponte’s office for the interview he appeared scared. In retrospect, Lt. Aponte does not know if it was the environment Shawn was in that made him afraid or something else. By environment, Lt. Aponte was referring to Shawn being interviewed by the police in his office. Lt. Aponte specifically recalls Shawn denying having a conversation with his brother Adam and denying knowing Steve Todd. The detectives asked if there was anyway in which Shawn Tenbrink’s activities could be monitored. Lt. Aponte said they monitored his phone calls and mail more closely.

Lt. Aponte said that to his recollection the MPD detective listened to the recorded telephone conversation. Lt. Aponte is 99% positive he made a separate recording onto a cassette tape of the telephone conversation between Shawn and Adam. He did this thinking it would be important at some date. Lt. Aponte does not recall if the detective took a copy of the tape or at a later date received a copy of the taped telephone conversation. Lt. Aponte said that at the time this occurred, the investigations unit was in the old Administration Building. After Lt. Aponte left the Investigative Unit, the Administration Building was moved from a 10,000 square foot area to occupy a 3000 square foot area. In the process it has been difficult at times to locate things. Lt. Aponte said he kept a spiral notebook of calls he received which would have indicated the call from the detective, however he does not know what happened to it in the move.

Immediately following the interview with the MPD detective, Shawn went back to his housing unti and called his mother’s place to get in touch with Adam. His brother wasn’t home so Shawn talked to his mother. Lt. Aponte’s recollection of the recorded telephone call was that Shawn told his mother to tell Adam that the police just interviewed him and he was to keep his mouth shut because he doesn’t know who he is dealing with. Lt. Aponte said based on Shawn’s conversation with his mother it did not seem that Steve Todd, Shawn and Adam were friends. The telephone call lasted about 3-4 minutes about the same amount of time as when Shawn called Adam. Lt. Aponte said Shawn had little or no respect for his mother based on listening to the recorded telephone conversation.

Lt. Aponte stated this was the first time he came across Shawn Tenbrink and said Shawn kept to himself. Shawn did not appear to be a problem at Norco. Lt. Aponte said Shawn Tenbrink’s central file possibly could be accessed through CDC Legal Affairs.

Beebee

03-27-2007, 09:48 AM

This from the one who has a site devoted to harassing Dan Horowitz by calling him a murderer. Slander much? We have a board moderator, you aren't it.

Marlene has been outted as the fraud she is. Keep up on facts, not lies. I know it is hard for you. Marlene spent an anormous amount of time fleecing money from her followers. She spent that money on herself. FACT! Also, she spent an anormous amount of time alerting the transcripts. If you had actually read them you'd know that. She is in hiding, fact. If you know where she is, do tell?

:punch:

Okay. Your intent here is obvious to me.

I'll be back later. Besides I have a Horowitz article to work on.

Wudge

03-27-2007, 10:06 AM

Given that the trial record proves the burglars lied and were across from the Petersons' home the morning that Laci was last seen, the State's failure to both disclose "Aponte" on a timely basis and protect "Aponte" related evidence will be a significant Brady material issue on appeal.

The amazing thing about the "Aponte" issue is that it has to compete with a ton of other issues that are also vying for the number one spot on appeal.

It is all but assurred that Scott will prevail in his appeal and a second trial will follow.

Wudge

03-27-2007, 10:57 AM

No, that is another lie by you Wudge. It has already been proven to you that he will not win in appeals. Why do you ignore the truth and post only lies? Do you really think that if you keep posting "it", it will come true? You spend 24/7 repeating lie after lie. Why is it you haven't gotten up from your chair, walked out your front door and given anyone this info to anyone in hopes to fee Scott? It's been how long and you've yet to do that. Is it because you'll be laughed at? Proven wrong again face to face? You can't be serious to believe that what you post will free Scott. Someone is going to come along and have an "ah ha" moment? You sound like you have a few more braincells than the other NGs and I can't believe you waste your life on this DRISP. You end up on the losing end always. imo of course

:rolleyes:

Over 50+ years, 70% of the cases that I've placed on my list of likely wrongful convictions have been successfully appealed or otherwise were been favorably resolved/cured.

Taken singularly, the appeal issues in this case are far beyond strong. However, the issues will also be considered compounding and cumulative. In the syllabus that will sectionalize the trial error and Constitutional issues (CI), you can reasonably expect to find:

- Ineffective venue change, poisoned venue chosen

- Erroneous admission of evidence

- Admission of evidence wherein prejudicial effect exceeded probative value

- Admission of junk science

- Defective juror removal

- Insufficient evidence to support proof beyond a reasonable doubt (juror error/Court failure)

- Defective jury instructions

- Unauthorized juror experimentation (both jury error and Court error)

- Corruption and conspiracy with overt intention to deny Scott Peterson a fair trial

- Withholding of exculpatory evidence

- Destruction of exculpatory evidence

- Manufacturing and presenting of alleged inculpatory evidence via conspiracy between LE and the DA's office with the intent to defraud the Court and deny Scott Peterson a fair trial

- Post trial juror issues (denying Scott Peterson his Constitutional rights)

- Infirmed verdict

Beyond trial error/CI

- Newly discovered evidence (Aponte)

- IAC

Net, given the number and strength of the CI/trial issues and given that upon judicial review, the 9th Circuit Court historically resolves 50% of capital case appeals for the appellant, a second trial is next to certain.

Beebee

03-27-2007, 11:06 AM

Over 50+ years, 70% of the cases that I've placed on my list of likely wrongful convictions have been successfully appealed or otherwise were been favorably resolved/cured.

Net, given the number and strength of the CI/trial issues and given that upon judicial review, the 9th Circuit Court historically resolves 50% of capital case appeals for the appellant, a second trial is next to certain.

snip for space only

Great post Wudge. I agree, a second trial is next to certain.... but with not a speck of evidence, how will the State proceed? You can bet that the Peterson camp will be MORE than prepared, and they do not have to produce the real killer to exonerate Scott.

Wudge

03-27-2007, 11:31 AM

snip for space only

Great post Wudge. I agree, a second trial is next to certain.... but with not a speck of evidence, how will the State proceed? You can bet that the Peterson camp will be MORE than prepared, and they do not have to produce the real killer to exonerate Scott.

A second trial would represent a much more difficult challenge for the State. The level of media demonization will certainly be less than what took place leading up to the first trial. And if Dr. Sheppard's trial is indicative of media changing course, you can expect more media reports that play up whether Scott was wrongfully convicted.

Further, it is likely that some, if not much, of the State's alleged evidence will not be allowed or brought up by the State in a second trial.

A trace element analyses comparing cement particulates between the concrete anchor and the concrete along the driveway edge would provide proof that they match. So the inferential basis for arguing alleged mythical anchors would be gone.

Additionally, Eloise Anderson was brutally impeached by Geragos. She would not returned to the witness stand. So dog evidence would be nill in a second trial.

Etc., etc.

All things considered, the State would have far less to build upon in a second trial. And they had little that was probative in the first trial.

Moreover, feel assurred that the defense's case-in-chief would be stronger and greatly expanded upon in a second trial.

Nevertheless, the critical factor in a second trial would remain voir dire, which obviously cannot be assessed at this time other than to say that the defense will want to seat more highly educated and/or younger males.

Beebee

03-27-2007, 11:47 AM

Nevertheless, the critical factor in a second trial would remain voir dire, which obviously cannot be assessed at this time other than to say that the defense will want to seat more highly educated and/or younger males.

snip for space.

Getting highly educated people on juries seems to be a problem, and I think it really needs to be addressed. I hate to say it but most highly educated people aren't willing to serve and find ways to get out of jury duty.

I pulled this off CCADP but it's worth consideration:

... But even if you set aside the issue of the quality of the representation and the low standards for court-appointed lawyers, there’s the juries to consider. A few years ago, many states started moving away from selecting potential jurors based on voter registrations and instead moved to a system of selection based on driver’s licenses. And what a difference that made to the quality of the jury pool. Needless to say, there’s a tremendous difference in the education and intelligence of the average driver’s license holder vs. the average registered voter. Felons who can’t register to vote can now appear on juries. People who aren’t informed enough to have enough of an opinion to cast a ballot now appear on juries. Ask lawyers who’ve been in practice long enough to witness the change and they’ll tell you that the quality of the average jury plummeted. ...

attorneywan2be

03-27-2007, 12:09 PM

These multiple impeachments of the burglars’ storyline are proof-positive that the burglary took place on 12/24 instead of on 12/26 as the burglars claim. And if the burglars lied about the 12/26 date, it clearly gives support to Lieutenant Aponte’s reporting that he heard a conversation that said an inmate, Steven Todd, had threatened Laci.

[B]Finally, in his closing argument, Distaso never claimed that the burglary took place on 12/26, never.

Given their criminal history, the burglars should not only be considered alternative suspects but prime suspects, for they would have had means, motive and opportunity.

EXACTLY!!!

Wudge

03-27-2007, 12:52 PM

snip for space.

Getting highly educated people on juries seems to be a problem, and I think it really needs to be addressed. I hate to say it but most highly educated people aren't willing to serve and find ways to get out of jury duty.

I pulled this off CCADP but it's worth consideration:

... But even if you set aside the issue of the quality of the representation and the low standards for court-appointed lawyers, there’s the juries to consider. A few years ago, many states started moving away from selecting potential jurors based on voter registrations and instead moved to a system of selection based on driver’s licenses. And what a difference that made to the quality of the jury pool. Needless to say, there’s a tremendous difference in the education and intelligence of the average driver’s license holder vs. the average registered voter. Felons who can’t register to vote can now appear on juries. People who aren’t informed enough to have enough of an opinion to cast a ballot now appear on juries. Ask lawyers who’ve been in practice long enough to witness the change and they’ll tell you that the quality of the average jury plummeted. ...

That is sadly true.

To properly assess circumstantial evidence and develop valid and/or true and/or reliable conclusions, jurors need to possess excellent capabilities in predicative/classical logic. This is a major reason I have long advocated the need for professional jurors. Though I would also accept removing from the potential voir dire pool any juror who did not sgrade 80 or more on an applied logic test.

thinkaboutit

03-27-2007, 01:00 PM

Over 50+ years, 70% of the cases that I've placed on my list of likely wrongful convictions have been successfully appealed or otherwise were been favorably resolved/cured.

:lol: Stop joking, my sides are killing me.

Is that you N. Morrison? Does NY head quarters know how you are wasting their money by paying you? I don't think they hired you to spend every waking hour on DRISP by posting pure lies, do you? What about all those other so called "innocent, but very guilty" people on death row?

As a forum leader, "hedidit" I suggest you read the rules of this forum. If you'd like to stick around, you'll be expected to discuss the case in a respectful, civil manner. Your empty accusations are not welcome here. If you don't have anything of value to add to these discussions, which you haven't yet, you may want to move along.

Wudge

03-27-2007, 01:31 PM

Is that you N. Morrison? Does NY head quarters know how you are wasting their money by paying you? I don't think they hired you to spend every waking hour on DRISP by posting pure lies, do you? What about all those other so called "innocent, but very guilty" people on death row?

I am neither female nor nearly as young as Nina. (chuckle) Though Yale is a fine institution.

Irrespective of my personnels, my post summing up the appeal issues is valid. They are numerous, substantial and cumulative.

shirlley

03-27-2007, 02:11 PM

As a forum leader, "hedidit" I suggest you read the rules of this forum. If you'd like to stick around, you'll be expected to discuss the case in a respectful, civil manner. Your empty accusations are not welcome here. If you don't have anything of value to add to these discussions, which you haven't yet, you may want to move along.

Thank you so much. I was hoping you would step in before it turned
into a bash the Petersons thread. I so want this forum to stay open.
Thanks again

Beebee

03-27-2007, 02:14 PM

That is sadly true.

To properly assess circumstantial evidence and develop valid and/or true and/or reliable conclusions, jurors need to possess excellent capabilities in predicative/classical logic. This is a major reason I have long advocated the need for professional jurors. Though I would also accept removing from the potential voir dire pool any juror who did not sgrade 80 or more on an applied logic test.

I agree Wudge- no person should have less than capable people deciding their fate.
Professional jurors are a long way off-- as we both know prosecutors, aka the State-- like the jury system as it is. A nice first step though would be to at least let jurors do their own research during a case. Why not? If they go in not understanding something, isn't it better that they get up to speed than to make an uninformed decision?

I wish the jurors on the Peterson case could have taken a boat like Scott's to the Bay and tried to dump a weighted dummy.

Wudge

03-27-2007, 02:32 PM

SNIP

A nice first step though would be to at least let jurors do their own research during a case. Why not? If they go in not understanding something, isn't it better that they get up to speed than to make an uninformed decision?

SNIP

In this case, the media put forth what could only be described as a massive pack of lies, falsehoods, myths and urban legends regarding Scott and the entire case. The entire jury pool was severely infected by this fact. Please understand that most people were just not astute to sort out fact from fiction.

The evidence available to jurors for their assessment does need to be filtered and controlled. What would assuredly happen otherwise would be (in some cases) the rendering of verdicts based on the jurors researching and accepting media lies/falsehoods/urban legends/myths, etc..

Invrdv8

03-27-2007, 02:40 PM

What happenend to the woman who is claiming to be Scott's lover since he was 19 and she was 45? She's claiming to write a book, but changes her name and location every day. First he was innocent and now he is guilty. She's going to pay him back for denying he knows her. :read:

:shrug:
You seem to have all the answers about everything. Why don't YOU know where this woman is? She "changes names and locations"? What's that supposed to mean? Where was it reported that she now feels Scott is guilty?
Just HOW is she going to "pay him back"? Sounds to me like you've been drinking way too much kool aid.:beer:

Invrdv8

03-27-2007, 02:51 PM

Oh I forgot to add that she too is in hiding. Smells like MN, yes?

:eek: Well, look who's here! I had my suspicions and your comment here just confirmed them. The good thing is, IMO, you won't be here long.:)

Anne2719

03-27-2007, 05:52 PM

Over 50+ years, 70% of the cases that I've placed on my list of likely wrongful convictions have been successfully appealed or otherwise were been favorably resolved/cured.

:lol: Stop joking, my sides are killing me.

Is that you N. Morrison? Does NY head quarters know how you are wasting their money by paying you? I don't think they hired you to spend every waking hour on DRISP by posting pure lies, do you? What about all those other so called "innocent, but very guilty" people on death row?
I've been reading along in this forum and discovering many interesting points I'd never considered before. The intelligent posters here have respectfully disputed some of the points, with facts, transcripts, and links to back up their arguments. I hope that you will do the same. So far I have seen only disrespect from you, which is not conducive to intelligent discussion.

accordn2me

03-28-2007, 02:01 AM

One2Snoop

03-28-2007, 02:35 AM

I agree Wudge- no person should have less than capable people deciding their fate.
Professional jurors are a long way off-- as we both know prosecutors, aka the State-- like the jury system as it is. A nice first step though would be to at least let jurors do their own research during a case. Why not? If they go in not understanding something, isn't it better that they get up to speed than to make an uninformed decision?

I wish the jurors on the Peterson case could have taken a boat like Scott's to the Bay and tried to dump a weighted dummy.

I find your entire post offensive. Not only to future jurors but to the ones who presided over this case. Not everyone in this world can afford a college education. How do we even know you have one? You almost make it sound as though future jurors should major in a "Bachelor of Jury Duty". Sounds like a great scheme to make money - kind of like those online fake diploma's you can order. Oh thats right, Scott had some of those. :punch:

I honestly believe hands on experience, street smart, a worldly experience, or whatever you want to call it, far outweighs any book knowledge experience. I'm not saying book knowledge is useless, I'm sure it would be very helpful but not for an entire jury. There's no balance in the sort of system you suggest.

Lets try again. There's a perfectly good reason why the jury system is set up the way it is. If your life and soul where at the stake of a "professional jury", "professional testimony", yada, yada are you seriously telling me you'd be ok with that? :eek: I have a hard time believing any "sane person" would find that acceptable.

accordn2me

03-28-2007, 03:55 AM

:tongue: One2Snoop why should we take what convicted felons say on their word? Which is exactly what MPD did. Todd said several things that were proven untrue. He said he saw mail in the Medina's mailbox - as Wudge said - it was undisputed that the only possible mail he could have seen in the Medina's mailbox was outgoing mail - which was gone by 10:50 a.m. on the 24th. He also said the Medina house looked empty because one car was gone. There was another parked in their driveway. How can one assume no one is home with a car in the driveway? Isn't it more likely that he saw the Medina's packing their other car up the morning of the 24th? He also told MPD that he had involved Pearce in the entire burglary - Pearce says no way - he only pulled up to the front of the house - the safe was already outside and Todd loaded it up and drove away. I'm sure you're familiar with the list of items Todd claims to have transported via his bicycle. A rolling tool box with tools in it that Susan Medina testified was too heavy for her husband to pick up, another 24-inch tool box full of tools, weedeater, electric saw, just to name a few. This burglary did not happen the way Todd claimed it did.

Are you familiar with the Aponte tip? The Tenbrink brothers were talking on the phone amongst themselves (or so they thought) about how Laci had interrupted Todd and Todd verbally threatened her. How can that be discounted? Even if Todd didn't have something to do with Laci's demise - the statement by Tenbrink that Todd saw Laci and vice versa - completely exonerates Scott.Why were the Tenbrink brothers in jail...or one in jail? Did they have any prior convictions or were they merely first-time-accused offenders? Unless this was their first rodeo, and they didn't know anyone who'd ever spent any time behind bars, maybe they really did believe jailhouse conversations were truly private. They probably missed that recorded bit BeeBee told us about that stated in advance that conversations were "monitored." In any case I have to ask, why should we take what jailbirds say in a conversation they believed to be private as gospel? Why were they "privately" talking about Laci Peterson in the first place? And if the Aponte tip is so up-and-up, why did Aponte "rather it not be recorded?"

accordn2me

03-28-2007, 05:26 AM

Beebee

03-28-2007, 08:52 AM

I find your entire post offensive. Not only to future jurors but to the ones who presided over this case. Not everyone in this world can afford a college education. How do we even know you have one? You almost make it sound as though future jurors should major in a "Bachelor of Jury Duty". Sounds like a great scheme to make money - kind of like those online fake diploma's you can order. Oh thats right, Scott had some of those.
snip

You are offended because I think capable people should sit on juries?

You are offended because I think people like Richelle Nice should not?

Okay. Be offended. I still stand by my opinion. The good news for you is it's not likely to change anytime soon. The bad news is wrongful convictions are an epidemic in this country. Hope you are never a victim.

MOO etc.

enlightenme

03-28-2007, 09:11 AM

You are offended because I think capable people should sit on juries?

You are offended because I think people like Richelle Nice should not?

Okay. Be offended. I still stand by my opinion. The good news for you is it's not likely to change anytime soon. The bad news is wrongful convictions are an epidemic in this country. Hope you are never a victim.

MOO etc.

An epidemic? Please link to facts to support this!

What constitutes an "epidemic" anyway? What percentages? What "polls" and statistics?

Beebee

03-28-2007, 09:47 AM

An epidemic? Please link to facts to support this!

What constitutes an "epidemic" anyway? What percentages? What "polls" and statistics?

However, one’s perspective on the magnitude of the problem might change when one considers the overall volume of cases processed through the U.S. criminal justice system. For example, in the year 2000 there were 2.2 million arrests in the United States for index crimes alone. We also know that about 70 percent of those arrested for felonies are ultimately convicted of either a felony or a misdemeanor. This means that if we assume that the system was 99.5 percent accurate in those cases and made errors in only one-half of 1 percent (0.5 percent) of those convictions, that rate of error would have produced about 7,500 wrongful convictions among those 2.2 million arrested for index crimes. So a small error rate in a very large system can result in thousands of miscarriages of justice and allow many of the criminals who actually committed those crimes to remain free to victimize others.

The study by the way was so conservatively done, that annual number of 7,500 is just the tip of the ice-berg. Read the whole thing here:

http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/spring2003/conviction.html

thinkaboutit

03-28-2007, 11:13 AM

:tongue: Why were the Tenbrink brothers in jail...or one in jail? Did they have any prior convictions or were they merely first-time-accused offenders? Unless this was their first rodeo, and they didn't know anyone who'd ever spent any time behind bars, maybe they really did believe jailhouse conversations were truly private. They probably missed that recorded bit BeeBee told us about that stated in advance that conversations were "monitored." In any case I have to ask, why should we take what jailbirds say in a conversation they believed to be private as gospel? Why were they "privately" talking about Laci Peterson in the first place? And if the Aponte tip is so up-and-up, why did Aponte "rather it not be recorded?"

Let's compare apples to apples here. You are suggesting it's okay to take the burglars word when they tell the police they didn't do something. But we shouldn't take their word when a conversation is recorded between two brothers. Good point - let's say they knew the conversation was being recorded. Shouldn't you ask yourself why they wanted so badly to put the blame on Todd? Shouldn't you ask yourself why these guys were talking about Todd - then denied knowing him? Doesn't that suggest the Tenbrinks could have had something to do with Laci's disappearance? That still exonerates Scott.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "why did Aponte 'rather it not be recorded'"? What didn't he want recorded? Are you suggesting that Aponte was lying? Why would he do that?

thinkaboutit

03-28-2007, 12:21 PM

I realize police do make mistakes...after all they are human. Todd & Pearce were petty criminals. Todd was out looking for stuff to steal to buy his kids Christmas presents IIRC. Todd was on a bike. Todd had to go looking for Pearce in order for him to have a car to load up his stolen goods....I honestly don't think they were involved...The MPD cleared them but could never seem to get past Scott.

Yes Todd & Pearce were burglars. They were also drug addicts. The investigation the MPD did into this burglary was, to put it mildly, incomplete.

I find it much easier to believe that these people were responsible for Laci's demise - than Scott - who had no history of drug use, no criminal record, no history of violence (domestic or any other), no childhood behavior problems, no history of anger problems, etc., etc.

Anne2719

03-28-2007, 12:29 PM

Invrdv8

03-28-2007, 12:46 PM

You are offended because I think capable people should sit on juries?

You are offended because I think people like Richelle Nice should not?

Okay. Be offended. I still stand by my opinion. The good news for you is it's not likely to change anytime soon. The bad news is wrongful convictions are an epidemic in this country. Hope you are never a victim.

MOO etc.
Do you think YOU qualify as a "capable person" to sit on a jury? What do you know about Richelle Nice that tells you she wasn't capable enough to sit on a jury? How about all the other jurors? Do you think they were "capable" people? What qualifies one as a "capable person"?

thinkaboutit

03-28-2007, 12:53 PM

A_seeker

03-28-2007, 01:04 PM

thinkaboutit

03-28-2007, 01:06 PM

It would be nice to think that the real "bad guys" are identifiable on sight and have histories of drug addiction and other antisocial behavior. But the truth is that no one is a killer until they take their first victim. And there are many sociopaths who appear to be charming, upstanding citizens.

I didn't say they were identifiable by sight. I'm simply saying the argument that the burglars couldn't be responsible for Laci's demise - because they were just "burglars" is not a valid one.

True - many sociopaths can appear to be charming. There are different levels of sociopaths. However sociopaths who are capable of murdering their their wives are rarely charming, upstanding citizens, especially to the degree that Scott Peterson was. There are so many myths out there about sociopathy - and people like Keith Ablow are the cause of this.

How many times have you seen someone arrested - and people say - I never would have guessed - or he seemed like such a nice guy. Plenty - right? But of those instances how many times do 100% of those people after the fact say - never saw any signs - nothing. He had EVERYBODY fooled. Not often - if not never. Most of the time - when they look back - they say - now that you mention it - but I didn't think anything of it at the time. And I'm not talking about things like - well - he didn't grieve "properly" - I mean things like - he couldn't hold down a job. Or he harrassed the neighbors. Or he was a bully when he was a kid. True signs of serious sociopathic behavior.

Beebee

03-28-2007, 01:07 PM

Do you think YOU qualify as a "capable person" to sit on a jury? What do you know about Richelle Nice that tells you she wasn't capable enough to sit on a jury? How about all the other jurors? Do you think they were "capable" people? What qualifies one as a "capable person"?

Yes, I think I am capable.

Richelle Nice has already shown she was not psychologically up for the task. Neither was the first foreman, imo. At least he recognized that fact and asked to be removed. Rice did not. Some basic screening could have eliminated them both from the start. JMO

One2Snoop

03-28-2007, 01:46 PM

Invrdv8

03-28-2007, 01:51 PM

Yes, I think I am capable.

Richelle Nice has already shown she was not psychologically up for the task. Neither was the first foreman, imo. At least he recognized that fact and asked to be removed. Rice did not. Some basic screening could have eliminated them both from the start. JMO
Of course you'd say you were capable. As would anybody asked that very same question. What would you say if you were told after some "basic screening" that you were not capable of serving on a jury?

Was Richelle Nice having psychological problems before or AFTER the trial? I believe the first foreman asked to be relieved, not because he realized he had psychological problems but, because he thought because of his Dr./Lawyer status he was going to run the show during deliberations and found out differently.

thinkaboutit

03-28-2007, 02:17 PM

Of course you'd say you were capable. As would anybody asked that very same question. What would you say if you were told after some "basic screening" that you were not capable of serving on a jury?

Was Richelle Nice having psychological problems before or AFTER the trial? I believe the first foreman asked to be relieved, not because he realized he had psychological problems but, because he thought because of his Dr./Lawyer status he was going to run the show during deliberations and found out differently.

VAN SUSTEREN: Rochelle, how about you? Did you pay a toll serving on this jury?

RICHELLE NICE, FMR SCOTT PETERSON JUROR: Yeah, I did.

VAN SUSTEREN: In what way?

NICE: I had a major break down last December. I'm not going to say it was all due to the trial, but it was explained that I had a weak foundation and that was the topper, that crumbled my foundation.

Beebee

03-28-2007, 02:18 PM

Of course you'd say you were capable. As would anybody asked that very same question. What would you say if you were told after some "basic screening" that you were not capable of serving on a jury?

Was Richelle Nice having psychological problems before or AFTER the trial? I believe the first foreman asked to be relieved, not because he realized he had psychological problems but, because he thought because of his Dr./Lawyer status he was going to run the show during deliberations and found out differently.

Then I wouldn't serve. You act like it's the juror who has the rights. It's not. It's the defendant. The defendant has a right to a fair trial. If a juror can not demonstrate basic logic/reasoning/psychological standards, then I think that inhibits a defendants right to a fair trial. As it stands now, there are people who sit on dna cases who don't have a CLUE what the testimony even means. Do you think that is appropriate?

The Dr/Lawyer wanted out because of stress. He shouldn't have gotten on in the first place if he wasn't psychologically prepared to do and finish the job.

JMO

accordn2me

03-28-2007, 02:19 PM

Let's compare apples to apples here. You are suggesting it's okay to take the burglars word when they tell the police they didn't do something. But we shouldn't take their word when a conversation is recorded between two brothers. Good point - let's say they knew the conversation was being recorded. Shouldn't you ask yourself why they wanted so badly to put the blame on Todd? Shouldn't you ask yourself why these guys were talking about Todd - then denied knowing him? Doesn't that suggest the Tenbrinks could have had something to do with Laci's disappearance? That still exonerates Scott.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "why did Aponte 'rather it not be recorded'"? What didn't he want recorded? Are you suggesting that Aponte was lying? Why would he do that?How did you come to the conclusion that I was suggesting it's okay to take the burglars word when they tell police they didn't do something? How preposterous! Like if I told you that you only want to take the burglars at their word when it's in your favor but reject their word when it's not in your favor. Or you're so willing to back the police when they are saying something that favors your cause. Yet when police accuse someone you believe to be innocent, those particular police are wrong, or deceptive, or malicious. Excuse me, did you say you'd pass a "capable juror" screening?:eek:

One more time...why were the Tenbrinks in jail? Any priors?

Here's what I was referring to when I said Aponte didn't want his interview to be recorded:

Post #15 on this thread: "Results of Interview

On 12/01/2004, at 9:40 AM, Lt. Xavier Aponte was interviewed in his office at California Rehabilitation Center regarding a recorded conversation between inmate Shawn Tenbrink and his brother Adam Tenbrink that occurred in the month of January 2003. Lt. Aponte was asked if the interview could be taped recorded and he said that he preferred that it not be recorded. Lt. Aponte provided the following information."

If Aponte was so sure of what he was saying, why not allow the interview to be recorded. I'm not suggesting he was maliciously lying, or simply lying even. It does lower the weight I'd give to his "interview" unless he came to court and put it on the record. It doesn't sound like he'd be willing to do that if he would rather the interview not be recorded in the first place.

accordn2me

03-28-2007, 02:28 PM

Then I wouldn't serve. You act like it's the juror who has the rights. It's not. It's the defendant. The defendant has a right to a fair trial. If a juror can not demonstrate basic logic/reasoning/psychological standards, then I think that inhibits a defendants right to a fair trial. As it stands now, there are people who sit on dna cases who don't have a CLUE what the testimony even means. Do you think that is appropriate?

The Dr/Lawyer wanted out because of stress. He shouldn't have gotten on in the first place if he wasn't psychologically prepared to do and finish the job.

JMODid you hear about that married astronaut that wore diapers to drive from Texas to Florida without stopping so she could confront a woman she thought was about to steal the man she was in love with (not her husband)? She's flown on a space shuttle mission, is an officer in the Air Force, I'd call her highly educated. Anyway, she was charged with attempted murder among other things. Do you think she would have qualified to serve on a "professional jury?" Do you think she was psychologically prepared? If not, what screening would have caught that? I mean, NASA missed it.:shrug:

Anne2719

03-28-2007, 02:40 PM

Then I wouldn't serve. You act like it's the juror who has the rights. It's not. It's the defendant. The defendant has a right to a fair trial. If a juror can not demonstrate basic logic/reasoning/psychological standards, then I think that inhibits a defendants right to a fair trial. As it stands now, there are people who sit on dna cases who don't have a CLUE what the testimony even means. Do you think that is appropriate?

The Dr/Lawyer wanted out because of stress. He shouldn't have gotten on in the first place if he wasn't psychologically prepared to do and finish the job.

JMO
Isn't that what voir dire is for, to screen potential jurors? Don't they often fill out a questionnaire before getting to voir dire? And in high-profile cases, don't both sides frequently have jury consultants for the purpose of spotting possible problems with jurors?

Why do you think professional jurors would do a significantly better job than the jurors we have now? Should the next step be computers with artificial intelligence, to weigh just the evidence? Where does it stop? And wouldn't professional juries make the appeals process more difficult and maybe ruled unnecessary?

I hate to see a system -- which has mostly worked for 200+ years -- tampered with. Why not let the checks and balances continue to do their job?

Beebee

03-28-2007, 02:48 PM

One2Snoop

03-28-2007, 02:49 PM

Yes Todd & Pearce were burglars. They were also drug addicts. The investigation the MPD did into this burglary was, to put it mildly, incomplete.

I find it much easier to believe that these people were responsible for Laci's demise - than Scott - who had no history of drug use, no criminal record, no history of violence (domestic or any other), no childhood behavior problems, no history of anger problems, etc., etc.

Just because "You Believe" Scott is all those things doesn't mean he didn't kill Laci. Seemingly perfect normal people have killed before and this probably will not be the last time a seemingly normal person kills their spouse.
Just because Todd & Pearce are petty burglars and (drug users - to what degree?) doesn't mean they killed Laci. In fact I think it would be extremely difficult for Todd to get her body all the way to the bay on the back of a bicycle without being noticed, don't you? What evidence do you have that Laci was ever in Pearce's car which appears to be the only mode of transportation that Todd had at the time?

I'm satisfied with the police investigation and Scott is right where he belongs - on Death Row! :patriot:

thinkaboutit

03-28-2007, 02:50 PM

How did you come to the conclusion that I was suggesting it's okay to take the burglars word when they tell police they didn't do something? How preposterous! Like if I told you that you only want to take the burglars at their word when it's in your favor but reject their word when it's not in your favor. Or you're so willing to back the police when they are saying something that favors your cause. Yet when police accuse someone you believe to be innocent, those particular police are wrong, or deceptive, or malicious. Excuse me, did you say you'd pass a "capable juror" screening?:eek:

First of all - I never said I'd pass a "capable juror" screening (not that I wouldn't) - but that last comment is insulting - especially with that face - and I DON'T appreciate it. You need to slow down and realize who you are addressing - you are getting me confused with another poster. When have I taken the burglars' word when it's my favor but rejected their word when it's not in my favor? When have I been so willing to back the police when they are saying something that favors my cause? I'm assuming by you - you mean NG's generally - I would appreciate it if you would address me specifically on the issues I have discussed - and not on issues other's have discussed (just as you appreciate me putting your name on your quotes).

One more time...why were the Tenbrinks in jail? Any priors?

Could you please explain to me what the Tenbrinks priors have to do with anything? Yes - they are many time felons - just like Todd. But their credibility is not in question for the usual reasons when you have jailhouse informants. These two were talking amongst themselves. As soon as one learned their conversation had been listened to - he called the other and told him to shut up - because he didn't know who they were dealing with. Once people starting questioning them they became uncooperative.

Here's what I was referring to when I said Aponte didn't want his interview to be recorded:

Post #15 on this thread: "Results of Interview

On 12/01/2004, at 9:40 AM, Lt. Xavier Aponte was interviewed in his office at California Rehabilitation Center regarding a recorded conversation between inmate Shawn Tenbrink and his brother Adam Tenbrink that occurred in the month of January 2003. Lt. Aponte was asked if the interview could be taped recorded and he said that he preferred that it not be recorded. Lt. Aponte provided the following information."

If Aponte was so sure of what he was saying, why not allow the interview to be recorded. I'm not suggesting he was maliciously lying, or simply lying even. It does lower the weight I'd give to his "interview" unless he came to court and put it on the record. It doesn't sound like he'd be willing to do that if he would rather the interview not be recorded in the first place.

So simply because he preferred the conversation not be recorded - this lowers the weight of the interview? He gave a signed statement to the prosecution as well as the defense. He sure seemed sure of what he heard when he heard it - because he called the MPD more than once trying to get someone to call him back. He didn't testify - nor was his statement ever seen by the jury - because Delucchi ruled it OUT - because the burglary didn't fall within Karen Servas timeline. Karen Servas, imo, was not a reliable witness when it came to time. She was an entire hour off on one of her statements for several MONTHS. Besides that - she contradicted her pre-lim testimony when she testified at the trial.

You have an informant turning in Todd - you have the Tenbrinks naming Todd as AT LEAST having seen Laci - you have Todd lying about facts of the burglary - you have Lt. Aponte calling in to the tipline several times after overhearing the Tenbrink conversation - and you have Mr. "R" contacting the prosecution at the end of the trial from the Stanislaus County Jail with information about the "abduction of Laci Peterson" whereby he names the Tenbrinks, Todd and others as being involved - which is the only reason Geragos finds the Aponte tip - because he then searches the discovery for Tenbrinks name. And you have the judge completely dismissing all of this - because of one witness's timeline. There is more evidence right there that SOMEONE else had something to do with Laci's murder than all the so-called circumstantial evidence against Scott.

thinkaboutit

03-28-2007, 03:03 PM

Just because "You Believe" Scott is all those things doesn't mean he didn't kill Laci. Seemingly perfect normal people have killed before and this probably will not be the last time a seemingly normal person kills their spouse.
Just because Todd & Pearce are petty burglars and (drug users - to what degree?) doesn't mean they killed Laci. In fact I think it would be extremely difficult for Todd to get her body all the way to the bay on the back of a bicycle without being noticed, don't you? What evidence do you have that Laci was ever in Pearce's car which appears to be the only mode of transportation that Todd had at the time?

I'm satisfied with the police investigation and Scott is right where he belongs - on Death Row! :patriot:

I don't see where what "I believe" is even an issue here. The facts are the facts. Everything I stated is a fact. Scott had no history of any of those things - period. Scott wasn't just "seemingly" normal - he was normal. Nobody is saying that we believe Todd and Pearce killed Laci because they are burglars. No one has made that argument. I was simply countering a G's argument that they wouldn't have killed Laci because they were ONLY burglars. Todd being a burglar has nothing to do with why I think he either knows something or had something to do with Laci's murder.

I've said it before - I'll say it again... I don't thing Todd and Pearce were the only ones involved in the Medina burglary. I don't think Laci's body was transported in Pearce's car.

How can you be satisfied with an investigation in which witnesses who claimed to have seen Laci walking that morning were never contacted or told to prove they were where they said they were? Did you know that some witnesses were not contacted AT ALL until after Scott's trial started (have you ever heard of the term CYA)? How can you be satisfied with an investigation that focused on one person from the very start and all leads to other possible suspects were ignored?

accordn2me

03-28-2007, 03:45 PM

One2Snoop

03-28-2007, 04:10 PM

I don't see where what "I believe" is even an issue here. The facts are the facts. Everything I stated is a fact. Scott had no history of any of those things - period. Scott wasn't just "seemingly" normal - he was normal. Nobody is saying that we believe Todd and Pearce killed Laci because they are burglars. No one has made that argument. I was simply countering a G's argument that they wouldn't have killed Laci because they were ONLY burglars. Todd being a burglar has nothing to do with why I think he either knows something or had something to do with Laci's murder.

I've said it before - I'll say it again... I don't thing Todd and Pearce were the only ones involved in the Medina burglary. I don't think Laci's body was transported in Pearce's car.

How can you be satisfied with an investigation in which witnesses who claimed to have seen Laci walking that morning were never contacted or told to prove they were where they said they were? Did you know that some witnesses were not contacted AT ALL until after Scott's trial started (have you ever heard of the term CYA)? How can you be satisfied with an investigation that focused on one person from the very start and all leads to other possible suspects were ignored?

Ahhhh and there's where we differ in opinion. Scott is not normal. What about all the lies Scott told?

Here's an interesting article about Pathological Liars...

Liars' Brains Wired Differently
09/29/05
A USC study of pathological liars shows first evidence of structural differences in the area of the brain that enables most people to feel remorse.
By Usha Sutliff

A three-dimensional MRI image of the brain

A USC study has found the first proof of structural brain abnormalities in people who habitually lie, cheat and manipulate others.

While previous research has shown that there is heightened activity in the prefrontal cortex – the area of the brain that enables most people to feel remorse or learn moral behavior – when normal people lie, this is the first study to provide evidence of structural differences in that area among pathological liars.

http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/11655.html

Invrdv8

03-28-2007, 04:22 PM

Then I wouldn't serve. You act like it's the juror who has the rights. It's not. It's the defendant. The defendant has a right to a fair trial. If a juror can not demonstrate basic logic/reasoning/psychological standards, then I think that inhibits a defendants right to a fair trial. As it stands now, there are people who sit on dna cases who don't have a CLUE what the testimony even means. Do you think that is appropriate?

The Dr/Lawyer wanted out because of stress. He shouldn't have gotten on in the first place if he wasn't psychologically prepared to do and finish the job.

JMO
I'm not "acting" like anything. I wonder if you'd feel the same way about the jurors if they had found Scott innocent. Even with Richelle's "psychological problems" she would have been OK in your eyes then, right? Do you really think a defendents rights would be more protected using "professional jurors"?

IMO the Dr./Lawyer wanted out because he wasn't used to having the average person question his abilities/authority. His stress was caused by not being able to accept the fact that he needed to work with the other jurors to reach a verdict. I'll bet before the trial he would have told you he was perfectly capable of serving on that jury.
JMO:)

accordn2me

03-28-2007, 04:25 PM

One2Snoop why should we take what convicted felons say on their word? Which is exactly what MPD did. Todd said several things that were proven untrue. He said he saw mail in the Medina's mailbox - as Wudge said - it was undisputed that the only possible mail he could have seen in the Medina's mailbox was outgoing mail - which was gone by 10:50 a.m. on the 24th. He also said the Medina house looked empty because one car was gone. There was another parked in their driveway. How can one assume no one is home with a car in the driveway? Isn't it more likely that he saw the Medina's packing their other car up the morning of the 24th? He also told MPD that he had involved Pearce in the entire burglary - Pearce says no way - he only pulled up to the front of the house - the safe was already outside and Todd loaded it up and drove away. I'm sure you're familiar with the list of items Todd claims to have transported via his bicycle. A rolling tool box with tools in it that Susan Medina testified was too heavy for her husband to pick up, another 24-inch tool box full of tools, weedeater, electric saw, just to name a few. This burglary did not happen the way Todd claimed it did.

Are you familiar with the Aponte tip? The Tenbrink brothers were talking on the phone amongst themselves (or so they thought) about how Laci had interrupted Todd and Todd verbally threatened her. How can that be discounted? Even if Todd didn't have something to do with Laci's demise - the statement by Tenbrink that Todd saw Laci and vice versa - completely exonerates Scott. Are you suggesting that we should take the Tenbrinks on their word but not Todd? Are you suggesting the MPD took Todd on his word but not the Tenbrinks? Are you suggesting that it's OK for officer Aponte to take convicted felons on their word but it's not OK for the MPD to do so?

Do you see how stoopid that line of thinking sounds?:no:

thinkaboutit

03-28-2007, 04:55 PM

thinkaboutit....what an appropriate name for you. do you think about what you read? do you process it? in a logical manner? you are the one who needs to slow down and carefully read what people are trying to say to you. fyi, the :eek: was just after the words "capable juror screening" which i think is a ludricous idea. i'm not trying to push your buttons dear. but you have to be willing to get as good as you give. now, why don't you think about what i've said....and what you've inferred from that....maybe go back and carefully read what i typed. ya know, if you're having this much trouble on a message board, it's no wonder you can't process the transcripts and see how the police and jury came to the final conclusion that was reached. ever heard the expression "know your enemy?" at least try to see it from the other side. you'll have more credibility and the respect you so seem to crave.

Your posts get increasingly more disrespectful "accordn2me" - I'd watch myself if I were you. If instead of debating/and or responding to my post - you are going to resort to insults - as a forum leader - I'm officially letting you know it won't be tolerated here.

I'll slow down - maybe YOU'LL understand this time. This is exactly what you said - I quote (do you forget that this stuff is in writing?)

Excuse me, did you say you'd pass a "capable juror" screening? :eek:

Don't try to pass that off as something that it wasn't. MY POINT "dear" was that I was not the poster that you were referring to AND it was insulting.

I don't need to go back and read what you said. It's very clear to me - and I'm sure to everyone else on this board. Maybe you need to go back and read the rules of this board.

thinkaboutit

03-28-2007, 04:58 PM

Are you suggesting that we should take the Tenbrinks on their word but not Todd? Are you suggesting the MPD took Todd on his word but not the Tenbrinks? Are you suggesting that it's OK for officer Aponte to take convicted felons on their word but it's not OK for the MPD to do so?

Do you see how stoopid that line of thinking sounds?:no:

Do you REALLY not see that it is not the same thing? The first thing Todd says when confronted with the burglary was - "I didn't have nothing to do with that woman and the baby".

The Tenbrinks were talking to EACH OTHER about knowing Todd and Todd seeing Laci - then when confronted by LE - stopped talking.

Let me ask you this......again....let's say the Tenbrinks knew they were being taped and were lying. Now why do you think they would do that?

One2Snoop

03-28-2007, 05:01 PM

Do you REALLY not see that it is not the same thing? The first thing Todd says when confronted with the burglary was - "I didn't have nothing to do with that woman and the baby".

Let me ask you this......again....let's say the Tenbrinks knew they were being taped and were lying. Now why do you think they would do that?

Well isn't it possible he saw it on the news, or in the paper for that matter and recognized the neighborhood. I'd probably say the same thing if I'd been in the neighborhood of a now missing woman. :eek:

thinkaboutit

03-28-2007, 05:05 PM

LionRun

03-28-2007, 05:11 PM

Ahhhh and there's where we differ in opinion. Scott is not normal. What about all the lies Scott told?

Here's an interesting article about Pathological Liars...

Liars' Brains Wired Differently
09/29/05
A USC study of pathological liars shows first evidence of structural differences in the area of the brain that enables most people to feel remorse.
By Usha Sutliff

A three-dimensional MRI image of the brain

A USC study has found the first proof of structural brain abnormalities in people who habitually lie, cheat and manipulate others.

While previous research has shown that there is heightened activity in the prefrontal cortex – the area of the brain that enables most people to feel remorse or learn moral behavior – when normal people lie, this is the first study to provide evidence of structural differences in that area among pathological liars.

http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/11655.html

Thank you one2Snoop. I thought there were many times when Scott lied when he didn't even, "have to." I believe that in addition to possibly being a pathological liar, he may also have several strong narcissistic traits--which includes having no empathy for others.

I think, too that there are some with anti-social personality disorder and/or narcissistic personality disorder who are charming and attractive due to their ability to know how to behave. Many of these people have learned how to behave appropriately in interactions with others and to use it to their advantage--yet they feel no empathy at all for anyone but themselves.

I met someone years ago on a search who was such a person. I was searching with my dog for a missing woman named Darlene Anderson of Round Rock, TX. I was a couple of hundred feet from base camp giving my dog a much needed break when I was approached by a good looking, charming man named Roger Fain. He said that we could use two horses to search together because since my dog worked so fast we could cover much more ground together. I declined because I didn't know him, in SAR we go out in specific groups known to the people at base camp, and because my dog was having issues with trying to herd horses that I was working with him on. I thank God that I didn't go with him that day.

Roger Fain was an attractive person, and I don't just mean looks. He was charming and appeared to be intelligent, witty, sensitive, gentle, and caring. But, he was a murderer, possibly a serial killer, and he had inserted himself into the investigation. He was not convicted of Darlene's murder. However, he was convicted of Sandra Dumont's murder--and both bodies were found in the same manner, on the same day, in a field, under boards. Recently, DNA has linked him to a third murder.

One cannot judge a book by its cover when it comes to murderers.

Lion

thinkaboutit

03-28-2007, 05:19 PM

Well isn't it possible he saw it on the news, or in the paper for that matter and recognized the neighborhood. I'd probably say the same thing if I'd been in the neighborhood of a now missing woman. :eek:

Absolutely - especially if I had been right across the street! :)

Anne2719

03-28-2007, 05:19 PM

WHOA, Lion! Talk about almost literally dodging a bullet!

thinkaboutit

03-28-2007, 05:27 PM

Thank you one2Snoop. I thought there were many times when Scott lied when he didn't even, "have to." I believe that in addition to possibly being a pathological liar, he may also have several strong narcissistic traits--which includes having no empathy for others.

I think, too that there are some with anti-social personality disorder and/or narcissistic personality disorder who are charming and attractive due to their ability to know how to behave. Many of these people have learned how to behave appropriately in interactions with others and to use it to their advantage--yet they feel no empathy at all for anyone but themselves.

I met someone years ago on a search who was such a person. I was searching with my dog for a missing woman named Darlene Anderson of Round Rock, TX. I was a couple of hundred feet from base camp giving my dog a much needed break when I was approached by a good looking, charming man named Roger Fain. He said that we could use two horses to search together because since my dog worked so fast we could cover much more ground together. I declined because I didn't know him, in SAR we go out in specific groups known to the people at base camp, and because my dog was having issues with trying to herd horses that I was working with him on. I thank God that I didn't go with him that day.

Roger Fain was an attractive person, and I don't just mean looks. He was charming and appeared to be intelligent, witty, sensitive, gentle, and caring. But, he was a murderer, possibly a serial killer, and he had inserted himself into the investigation. He was not convicted of Darlene's murder. However, he was convicted of Sandra Dumont's murder--and both bodies were found in the same manner, on the same day, in a field, under boards. Recently, DNA has linked him to a third murder.

One cannot judge a book by its cover when it comes to murderers.

Lion

Lion - what a scary story - and a very close call.

I agree - you cannot tell by looking at someone whether or not they are a sociopath.

But you can often tell by their history. A quick google search for Fain and the second article I pulled up said:

The man who police say sexually assaulted and killed an Arlington woman 18 years ago has a history of violent crimes against women that dates back to when he was a teen-ager.

accordn2me

03-28-2007, 05:32 PM

WHOA, Lion! Talk about almost literally dodging a bullet!

LION RUN

How fascinating! I'd love to hear more about your animals, work, experiences.

accordn2me

03-28-2007, 05:45 PM

Your posts get increasingly more disrespectful "accordn2me" - I'd watch myself if I were you. If instead of debating/and or responding to my post - you are going to resort to insults - as a forum leader - I'm officially letting you know it won't be tolerated here.

I'll slow down - maybe YOU'LL understand this time. This is exactly what you said - I quote (do you forget that this stuff is in writing?)

Don't try to pass that off as something that it wasn't. MY POINT "dear" was that I was not the poster that you were referring to AND it was insulting.

I don't need to go back and read what you said. It's very clear to me - and I'm sure to everyone else on this board. Maybe you need to go back and read the rules of this board.

I'd say my posts are about the same amount of disrespectful, actually.

I do need to apologize to you for mistaking you for another poster...no less than twice....maybe more. I joined two boards at practically the same time AND I'm trying to do some research on this case with an extreme personal case of ADD. I'm getting mixed up. Looks like I need to slow down...advice noted.

Respectfully, you seem to be reading things into what I type. At least when you come back with a question or statement about what I've "said," I think...no, that wasn't what I meant at all. I'll keep in mind you don't have the benefit of knowing me, ;) nor I you. As for you being forum leader, thanks for informing me. I didn't know. And I'll confess right now, I've never read the rules on any board. I like to believe I know how to act and don't need to read them. Could be wrong.... However, I treat the forum leaders, even when I know who they are, just like I treat everyone else. Sometimes I'll play off the perceived "tone" of a post and reply in kind. Maybe that's not the best thing to do around here.

Hey Paula

03-28-2007, 05:49 PM

The system isn't going to get tampered with anytime soon. It's merely my opinion that the present jury system is part of the reason why we have many wrongful convictions. I think standard screening should replace jury consultants, who are really only looking for who will benefit their side, not who will figure out the truth.

MOOetc

I agree with you. But, it follows the pattern of our entire adversarial legal system. Ideally, a trial is a search for the truth. Inasmuch as most defendants are guilty, do you think defense attorneys want juries to learn the truth?

IMO

accordn2me

03-28-2007, 05:56 PM

Do you REALLY not see that it is not the same thing? The first thing Todd says when confronted with the burglary was - "I didn't have nothing to do with that woman and the baby".

The Tenbrinks were talking to EACH OTHER about knowing Todd and Todd seeing Laci - then when confronted by LE - stopped talking.

Let me ask you this......again....let's say the Tenbrinks knew they were being taped and were lying. Now why do you think they would do that?OK. I don't know enough about this...first time I heard it was this thread...to give you an informed opinion about these hoodlums.

I can make the statement that during a murder investigation, I don't think anyone should be blindly taken at their word, including fine, upstanding citizens like Karen Servas....IIRC who she is....because everyone can make mistakes.

From what I can gather just by reading here....Karen Servas was an hour or so off on her timeline until a month or so later when she found some receipt and she immediately came forward and corrected herself. These burglars cannot even agree what day it was that the burglary took place. Are we supposed to go on what one of them thinks he saw about the mail to conclude that it must have been the 24th even though they all say another day?

Even if one of them claims that another one saw & threatened Laci, and that really happened, how does that exonerate Scott? Let's say it happened on Laci's way out to walk McKenzie. She takes off over that bridge someone saw her on...or where ever she was seen...Scott still could have turned around and come back to the park or where ever she was, picked her up, murdered her, released the dog, etc....

thinkaboutit

03-28-2007, 05:57 PM

I'd say my posts are about the same amount of disrespectful, actually.

I do need to apologize to you for mistaking you for another poster...no less than twice....maybe more. I joined two boards at practically the same time AND I'm trying to do some research on this case with an extreme personal case of ADD. I'm getting mixed up. Looks like I need to slow down...advice noted.

Respectfully, you seem to be reading things into what I type. At least when you come back with a question or statement about what I've "said," I think...no, that wasn't what I meant at all. I'll keep in mind you don't have the benefit of knowing me, ;) nor I you. As for you being forum leader, thanks for informing me. I didn't know. And I'll confess right now, I've never read the rules on any board. I like to believe I know how to act and don't need to read them. Could be wrong.... However, I treat the forum leaders, even when I know who they are, just like I treat everyone else. Sometimes I'll play off the perceived "tone" of a post and reply in kind. Maybe that's not the best thing to do around here.

Thanks, I appreciate your post. I'll try not to read things into what you type. From now on, I'll ask, before I assume.

I didn't mean to imply I expect to be treated any differently than any other posters on the forum. We all need to respect each other's opinion.

And I apologize if my posts had a "tone". I guess we've gotten off on the wrong foot....maybe we can start again. :seeya:

accordn2me

03-28-2007, 06:03 PM

Thanks, I appreciate your post. I'll try not to read things into what you type. From now on, I'll ask, before I assume.

I didn't mean to imply I expect to be treated any differently than any other posters on the forum. We all need to respect each other's opinion.

And I apologize if my posts had a "tone". I guess we've gotten off on the wrong foot....maybe we can start again. :seeya:
I'd like that very much. :seeya:

Pardon me for not introducing myself properly.

Greetings everyone!

My boyfriend mentioned that he played on a golf team with Scott. B/f feels that there was not "enough proof" for Scott to be sitting on death row. I think Scott's guilty but I wasn't able to defend that position to my satisfaction, so I'm here to "brush up." Please pardon me in advance if I ask newbieish questions.

One2Snoop

03-28-2007, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit
Do you REALLY not see that it is not the same thing? The first thing Todd says when confronted with the burglary was - "I didn't have nothing to do with that woman and the baby".

The Tenbrinks were talking to EACH OTHER about knowing Todd and Todd seeing Laci - then when confronted by LE - stopped talking.

Originally Posted by One2Snoop
Well isn't it possible he saw it on the news, or in the paper for that matter and recognized the neighborhood. I'd probably say the same thing if I'd been in the neighborhood of a now missing woman.

Absolutely - especially if I had been right across the street! :)

Then you agree with me that Todd could've heard about Laci missing on the news. Why does this make him involved in her disappearance then? No one saw him with her - just like no one saw Scott. You are convicting Todd on hearsay. IMO.

LionRun

03-28-2007, 06:10 PM

WHOA, Lion! Talk about almost literally dodging a bullet!

Geesh you aren't kidding. Thank goodnes I adhered to the protocall of SAR, and that my dog had "horse herding" issues.

Welcome to the forum Anne:).

Lion

Anne2719

03-28-2007, 06:20 PM

Geesh you aren't kidding. Thank goodnes I adhered to the protocall of SAR, and that my dog had "horse herding" issues.

Welcome to the forum Anne:).

Lion
Thanks! It's good to be here!

Do you and your dog still do SAR? And is that your SAR dog in your avatar? Beautiful!

LionRun

03-28-2007, 06:34 PM

LION RUN

How fascinating! I'd love to hear more about your animals, work, experiences.

Thank you accordin2me. I have some stories; but, of course they for the most part wouldn't be for this forum. If ever there is an appropriate thread, I would be glad to share some stories.

And, I want to thank you for taking a step back on this forum. We may need to take a breath and to always show respect for others, and I am glad you can understand that. It is at times easier said then done due to the wide range of intense emotions this case has induced from the start.

Lion

LionRun

03-28-2007, 07:29 PM

Lion - what a scary story - and a very close call.

I agree - you cannot tell by looking at someone whether or not they are a sociopath.

But you can often tell by their history. A quick google search for Fain and the second article I pulled up said:

Sure may have been a close call. I am glad I didn't go on that venture to find out.

Although, sometimes you can tell by someone's history I keep in mind that that is in part because the person was caught. Fain had at least one additional factor--he raped and murdered. Scott was not known as a rapist or serial killer. Most sociopaths and narcissists don't murder. Instead they work conning and hurting people in other ways--wherever their interests and desires lead them to. But, the fact that they have no empathy for others will allow them from within to kill if the, "need" arises. Most of us would not consider murder as an option.

But, there are those who most would never have suspected--until they got caught. Ted Bundy, is one of many.

attorneywan2be

03-28-2007, 08:58 PM

Yes, I think I am capable.

Richelle Nice has already shown she was not psychologically up for the task. Neither was the first foreman, imo. At least he recognized that fact and asked to be removed. Rice did not. Some basic screening could have eliminated them both from the start. JMO

Hi BeeBee..:seeya:

Why do you think the first foreman was not psychologically up for the task? we know he was concerned about his safety..judge Delucchi didn't even investigate..I think what he realized is that he was not supported by the system..he realized he was on his own...if he took those threatening comments seriously then I can't really blame him..he was there to serve as a juror, IMO, he was fit for that task..he wasn't there to be a hero!..I don't think it's required of the jury to put their safety on the line...is it? some other person in his place might have put his own safety on the line, but I don't think they are required to do so..

Anne2719

03-28-2007, 09:33 PM

. . . But, there are those who most would never have suspected--until they got caught. Ted Bundy, is one of many.

Very true. I found out a few years ago that my cousin in Tacoma dated Ted Bundy back in the day. He apparently was a very charming guy. Who knew?

attorneywan2be

03-29-2007, 03:50 PM

Todd was with his chidlren when Garegos alleges that the burgay took place. Did he take them with him to kidnap Laci.

Also, if you read the 459 question that garegos asks - he asks a two-part question and the responnse was to "459 is a burglary isn't it."

explain to me also, how Todd, who was incarcerated in DVI had a conversation with Tenbrink who was in NORCO over 500 milesaway.

All telephone conversations in prison are recorded - the ony exception is atty calls. So there would be a record of this alleged conversation and there is not.

According to CL rules, when you state something as a fact you should provide the link that supports it...

You stated that Todd was with his children..please post the link...

Thank you..

attorneywan2be

03-29-2007, 03:54 PM

the Judge DID investigate and found that the juror needed to be removed.
Judge Dellucchi is far more knowledgable about the law than any of us and to assume that he did not do his job borders on libel. Look at his record. None of us were in his chambers and we do NOT know what happened. You are taking the word of a known LIAR (Mark Garegos).

Judge Delucchi gave many many "freebee's to the defense. He never sanctioned the defense for breaking the gag order and it was broken daily thanks to the defense "insiders" who put Garegos's opinions and statements in the media. The Petersons were not sanctioned for doing interviews on TV and violating the gag order.

You are stating that judge Delucchi investigated the claims that the juror made about being threatened by other jurors...post the link or the part of the transcripts that supports your claim..

Thank you.

accordn2me

03-29-2007, 11:29 PM

You are stating that judge Delucchi investigated the claims that the juror made about being threatened by other jurors...post the link or the part of the transcripts that supports your claim..

Thank you.If I may....

Juror 5: I think it's going to be impossible -- well, I think it would be infinitely better if I were not the focus of some of this hostility. And, as I say, my motives have been impugned. And there are other issues. I'm not sure that my safety is even not --

The Court: What's troubling me, is this degenerating into some pettiness between the jurors, rather than -- to me, it's more a dispute about the process rather than getting into the merit of this case. Is that what's going on in there?

Juror 5: No, sir. I think that if I weren't there this jury would buckle down in a substantive way. We made substantial progress. We changed Forepersons. We took everything off the wall. We started again. The new Foreperson is

57

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

doing an excellent job. Issues are up on the white board, the easel is being prepared. Then this issue with regard to Juror Number 7 yesterday came up. I had this fit of conscience, or whatever. And now we're back to frustration again. But, to answer your question, I think that the jury is very focused when it's -- when the time is appropriate, and people are focused. I think they are doing a terrific job.

The Court: But it's not -- I don't think it's a good idea for me to substitute you out as a juror just because you can't get along, or some people have some animus toward you. If I have to bring every juror back in here, I'm going to tell them that, you know, they are supposed to be concentrating on the facts and the jury instructions in this case in arriving at a decision.

Juror 5: Your Honor, I think they can do that. I'm not sure I can do that at this point.

The Court: Well --

Juror 5: As I say, there have been comments made to me personally that -- that have made me reflect on whether or not my safety is at issue here.

The Court: You have been threatened bodily?

Juror 5: I have not been threatened bodily, but the comments, the looks --

The Court: Who is responsible for these comments?

Juror 5: Your Honor, I prefer not to do that, or go there, except to say that I have tried mightily. I think I'm at an end of what I can do reasonably with this jury to weigh this evidence fairly. I don't think I can weigh it fairly any longer.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Court%20Docs/newtrial.htm

attorneywan2be

03-29-2007, 11:44 PM

If I may....

Juror 5: I think it's going to be impossible -- well, I think it would be infinitely better if I were not the focus of some of this hostility. And, as I say, my motives have been impugned. And there are other issues. I'm not sure that my safety is even not --

The Court: What's troubling me, is this degenerating into some pettiness between the jurors, rather than -- to me, it's more a dispute about the process rather than getting into the merit of this case. Is that what's going on in there?

Juror 5: No, sir. I think that if I weren't there this jury would buckle down in a substantive way. We made substantial progress. We changed Forepersons. We took everything off the wall. We started again. The new Foreperson is

57

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

doing an excellent job. Issues are up on the white board, the easel is being prepared. Then this issue with regard to Juror Number 7 yesterday came up. I had this fit of conscience, or whatever. And now we're back to frustration again. But, to answer your question, I think that the jury is very focused when it's -- when the time is appropriate, and people are focused. I think they are doing a terrific job.

The Court: But it's not -- I don't think it's a good idea for me to substitute you out as a juror just because you can't get along, or some people have some animus toward you. If I have to bring every juror back in here, I'm going to tell them that, you know, they are supposed to be concentrating on the facts and the jury instructions in this case in arriving at a decision.

Juror 5: Your Honor, I think they can do that. I'm not sure I can do that at this point.

The Court: Well --

Juror 5: As I say, there have been comments made to me personally that -- that have made me reflect on whether or not my safety is at issue here.

The Court: You have been threatened bodily?

Juror 5: I have not been threatened bodily, but the comments, the looks --

The Court: Who is responsible for these comments?

Juror 5: Your Honor, I prefer not to do that, or go there, except to say that I have tried mightily. I think I'm at an end of what I can do reasonably with this jury to weigh this evidence fairly. I don't think I can weigh it fairly any longer.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Court%20Docs/newtrial.htm

That's not an investigation...when a judge investigates an issue that is brought to his attention by one of the jurors and it involves possible misconduct by other jurors..he should call each and every juror to question them...let alone an issue as serious as being threatened by other jurors...in fact, the quote you posted is exactly what I was talking about..he just removed the juror in the middle of deliberations..

Most definitely, it is going to be an important appeal issue..

IMO

enlightenme

03-30-2007, 12:23 AM

accordn2me

03-30-2007, 12:36 AM

That's not an investigation...when a judge investigates an issue that is brought to his attention by one of the jurors and it involves possible misconduct by other jurors..he should call each and every juror to question them...let alone an issue as serious as being threatened by other jurors...in fact, the quote you posted is exactly what I was talking about..he just removed the juror in the middle of deliberations..

Most definitely, it is going to be an important appeal issue..

IMOJuror 5: I have not been threatened bodily, but the comments, the looks --

The Court: Who is responsible for these comments?

Juror 5: Your Honor, I prefer not to do that, or go there, except to say that I have tried mightily. I think I'm at an end of what I can do reasonably with this jury to weigh this evidence fairly. I don't think I can weigh it fairly any longer.

OK...accusations, right? I can hear it now.

Judge: Juror 1, have you been giving juror 5 "looks?" What about "comments?"

Juror 2, have you been giving juror 5 "looks" or "comments?"

Juror 3....4...6....7...(same thing about looks, comments)

The judge, maybe he should rough up juror 8 a little....

JUDGE: Juror 8, you bein' a trouble maker? Been giving juror 5 any...."LOOKS?" what about "COMMENTS?" Any ideas why juror 5 told me they don't think they can fairly weigh the evidence any longer? Want to tell me who's been pickin' on juror 5? Juror 5 didn't want to tell me who it was. You tell me, juror 8....

enlightenme

03-30-2007, 12:40 AM

Juror 5: I have not been threatened bodily, but the comments, the looks --

The Court: Who is responsible for these comments?

Juror 5: Your Honor, I prefer not to do that, or go there, except to say that I have tried mightily. I think I'm at an end of what I can do reasonably with this jury to weigh this evidence fairly. I don't think I can weigh it fairly any longer.

OK...accusations, right? I can hear it now.

Judge: Juror 1, have you been giving juror 5 "looks?" What about "comments?"

Juror 2, have you been giving juror 5 "looks" or "comments?"

Juror 3....4...6....7...(same thing about looks, comments)

The judge, maybe he should rough up juror 8 a little....

JUDGE: Juror 8, you bein' a trouble maker? Been giving juror 5 any...."LOOKS?" what about "COMMENTS?" Any ideas why juror 5 told me they don't think they can fairly weigh the evidence any longer? Want to tell me who's been pickin' on juror 5? Juror 5 didn't want to tell me who it was. You tell me, juror 8....

Is this from your imagination? Do you have links for this?

You may be able to see it and hear it in your mind, but do you have proof?

Please?

Invrdv8

03-30-2007, 01:02 AM

That's not an investigation...when a judge investigates an issue that is brought to his attention by one of the jurors and it involves possible misconduct by other jurors..he should call each and every juror to question them...let alone an issue as serious as being threatened by other jurors...in fact, the quote you posted is exactly what I was talking about..he just removed the juror in the middle of deliberations..

Most definitely, it is going to be an important appeal issue..

IMO
Is the "investigation" you described normal procedure when an issue is brought to his attention by a juror or is it your opinion as to how an investigation should be done? Deluchi talked to the juror, the juror want to eluded to getting "looks", but didn't want to give specifics or name names and said he didn't think he could continue as an effective juror. The judge is going to halt the whole trial and investigate because a juror feels threatened by the "looks" he's getting? I'd say that alone would be enough for the judge to determine that the juror wasn't fit to serve. The judge did NOT just up and remove the juror. I doubt very much this will fly as an appeal issue. They might try but it'll be denied. JMO

attorneywan2be

03-30-2007, 01:14 AM

Juror 5: I have not been threatened bodily, but the comments, the looks --

The Court: Who is responsible for these comments?

Juror 5: Your Honor, I prefer not to do that, or go there, except to say that I have tried mightily. I think I'm at an end of what I can do reasonably with this jury to weigh this evidence fairly. I don't think I can weigh it fairly any longer.

OK...accusations, right? I can hear it now.

Judge: Juror 1, have you been giving juror 5 "looks?" What about "comments?"

Juror 2, have you been giving juror 5 "looks" or "comments?"

Juror 3....4...6....7...(same thing about looks, comments)

The judge, maybe he should rough up juror 8 a little....

JUDGE: Juror 8, you bein' a trouble maker? Been giving juror 5 any...."LOOKS?" what about "COMMENTS?" Any ideas why juror 5 told me they don't think they can fairly weigh the evidence any longer? Want to tell me who's been pickin' on juror 5? Juror 5 didn't want to tell me who it was. You tell me, juror 8....

No matter how large and colorful the fonts are...he didn't investigate as he should..his decision to remove a juror during deliberations is reversible error..

IMO

attorneywan2be

03-30-2007, 01:19 AM

Is the "investigation" you described normal procedure when an issue is brought to his attention by a juror or is it your opinion as to how an investigation should be done? Deluchi talked to the juror, the juror want to eluded to getting "looks", but didn't want to give specifics or name names and said he didn't think he could continue as an effective juror. The judge is going to halt the whole trial and investigate because a juror feels threatened by the "looks" he's getting? I'd say that alone would be enough for the judge to determine that the juror wasn't fit to serve. The judge did NOT just up and remove the juror. I doubt very much this will fly as an appeal issue. They might try but it'll be denied. JMO

Of course, the judge has no choice but to either investigate and resolve the matter WITHOUT removing a juror during DELIBERATIONS or declare a mistrial..!! Delucchi just wanted to have a verdict at all cost...that's my opinion..

enlightenme

03-30-2007, 01:21 AM

No matter how large and colorful the fonts are...he didn't investigate as he should..his decision to remove a juror during deliberations is reversible error..

IMO

So we only have alternative jurors for before deliberations?

attorneywan2be

03-30-2007, 01:26 AM

So we only have alternative jurors for before deliberations?

You'll find your answer if you read my last post on "was Scott Peterson wrongfully convicted?"

accordn2me

03-30-2007, 01:35 AM

Is this from your imagination? Do you have links for this?

You may be able to see it and hear it in your mind, but do you have proof?

Please?Pardon my flippant and yes, imaginary scenario of Judge Delucchi questioning (investigating) the other jurors about juror 5's (second #5) request to be dismissed. Did you miss the previous posts?

One2Snoop

03-30-2007, 02:16 AM

Pardon my flippant and yes, imaginary scenario of Judge Delucchi questioning (investigating) the other jurors about juror 5's (second #5) request to be dismissed. Did you miss the previous posts?

Why apologize - I loved it. A little humor does the soul good. :beer:

accordn2me

03-30-2007, 03:48 AM

Why apologize - I loved it. A little humor does the soul good. :beer:Yes it does, O2S. And I needed to inject a little humor because I have a character defect in that I can tend to get a little testy when someone places a request (even though it wasn't directed to me specifically) and I do my best to provide what they've asked for and they try to dismiss it with the proverbial strokes of a keyboard:cool: and no appreciation acknowledged.

If you don't mind indulging me for a proverbial cybermoment, I'd like to highlight some other comments juror 5 gave to Judge Delucchi during the proverbial investigation of said juror. I feel a need to read things into juror 5's comments so I will put my reading of juror 5's comments (but not looks) in purple in honor of the LSU Lady Tigers making the Final Four. GEAUX LADYTIGERS!!!

enlightenme, :seeya: are ya with me, sistah? my imagination in purple

Juror 5: I think it's going to be impossible[for me to do my duty as a juror] -- well, I think (emphasis mine) it would be infinitely better if I were not the focus of some of this hostility. And, as I say, my motives have been impugned. And there are other issues. I'm not sure (emphasis mine) that my safety is even not --

Juror 5: No, sir. I think that if I weren't there this jury would buckle down in a substantive way. It's my fault. I'm holding them back from what they need to do.......I had this fit of conscience, or whatever. I'm scared of the consequences of finding someone guilty of capital murder.

Juror 5: Your Honor, I think they can do that. I'm not sure I can do that at this point. "That" being concentrating on the facts and the jury instructions in this case in arriving at a decision.

Juror 5: As I say, there have been comments made to me personally (not by my fellow jurors) that -- that have made me reflect on whether or not my safety is at issue here.People everywhere are LOOKING AT ME and TALKING ABOUT ME! Someone told me jurors are going to get death threats and there will be riots like in Rodney King!

LionRun

03-30-2007, 04:38 AM

Very true. I found out a few years ago that my cousin in Tacoma dated Ted Bundy back in the day. He apparently was a very charming guy. Who knew?

Oh my gosh. Well, I am sure glad she knew him that way instead of becoming an abducted murder victim. He killed victims he had not previously met, so your cousin was lucky--as it were.

Lion

Lili007

03-30-2007, 08:53 AM

Let's discuss theories about other suspects..

IMO, there is overwhelming evidence that indicates that the burglars abducted and murdered Laci..

.....................snip

6-Few days after Laci's disappearance, Deanna Renfro Pawned what I believe was Laci's MISSING Croton watch...to this date this watch is still missing..Deanna Renfro has a criminal records, there is a strong possibility she is connected to the burglars...

Final Conclusion: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7 = the burglars did it..that's my opinion..

So according to this theory, burglars caught by Laci in the the act of plundering a neighbour's home were so concerned that they left behind their plunder and went to kidnap Laci instead, in the broad light of day, with Laci supposedly confronting them in the middle of the street (I don't suppose she was whispering to them from across the street, do you?).

So they stop the burglary, drop the safe in the yard and go after Laci instead. When did this happen? Was it in the 10 minute window between Scott being around and MacKenzie being found with his leash on outside Laci's Covena home?

Anyway... back to the subject.

So they kidnap Laci, take her Croton watch that she NEVER WORE because it was not her style (and which Scott tried to sell on ebay), without taking any other jewellry that they could have accessed in her house, instead taking just her, making no ransom demands to anyone, waiting patiently until she gave birth to Conner, strangling Conner with a piece of tape or twine ensuring to make a bow as they tied it up, before they drove all the way to SF Bay so they could dump his little body in the place where Scott was "fishing" the day Laci "disappeared".

I have a question: do you really think Scott is innocent, or is this defense tactics practice?

IMO

Wudge

03-30-2007, 09:22 AM

So according to this theory, burglars caught by Laci in the the act of plundering a neighbour's home were so concerned that they left behind their plunder and went to kidnap Laci instead, in the broad light of day, with Laci supposedly confronting them in the middle of the street (I don't suppose she was whispering to them from across the street, do you?).

So they stop the burglary, drop the safe in the yard and go after Laci instead. When did this happen? Was it in the 10 minute window between Scott being around and MacKenzie being found with his leash on outside Laci's Covena home?

Anyway... back to the subject.

So they kidnap Laci, take her Croton watch that she NEVER WORE because it was not her style (and which Scott tried to sell on ebay), without taking any other jewellry that they could have accessed in her house, instead taking just her, making no ransom demands to anyone, waiting patiently until she gave birth to Conner, strangling Conner with a piece of tape or twine ensuring to make a bow as they tied it up, before they drove all the way to SF Bay so they could dump his little body in the place where Scott was "fishing" the day Laci "disappeared".

I have a question: do you really think Scott is innocent, or is this defense tactics practice?

IMO

The burglars go to reasonable doubt, and they go there in a massive way.

As regards 10:18AM. Laci could well have been abducted before or after that time.

Beebee

03-30-2007, 10:16 AM

Hi BeeBee..:seeya:

Why do you think the first foreman was not psychologically up for the task? we know he was concerned about his safety..judge Delucchi didn't even investigate..I think what he realized is that he was not supported by the system..he realized he was on his own...if he took those threatening comments seriously then I can't really blame him..he was there to serve as a juror, IMO, he was fit for that task..he wasn't there to be a hero!..I don't think it's required of the jury to put their safety on the line...is it? some other person in his place might have put his own safety on the line, but I don't think they are required to do so..

I don't think his actual safety was on the line. He may have been feeling a lot of pressure, but I seriously doubt his personal safety was at risk. He had the brains, imo, but not what it takes psychologically to withstand the pressure of a high profile case and popular public opinion. That's a shame really. He could have hung that jury if he could have dealt with the pressure, IMO.
Seriously-- there wasn't a single juror on the case that could have swayed my NG vote. None. I would have told anyone who attempted to bully me to STFU, period.

Beebee

03-30-2007, 10:19 AM

Of course, the judge has no choice but to either investigate and resolve the matter WITHOUT removing a juror during DELIBERATIONS or declare a mistrial..!! Delucchi just wanted to have a verdict at all cost...that's my opinion..

I agree. He was well aware of what the trial had cost already. Delucchi is nothing but a politician.

Lili007

03-30-2007, 10:23 AM

The burglars go to reasonable doubt, and they go there in a massive way.

As regards 10:18AM. Laci could well have been abducted before or after that time.

There's nothing remotely reasonable about the burglars scenario. It's just laughbale, IMO.

Before 10:18? I don't think so. Otherwise, how does the Defense pretend to sustain their arguments that some 'witnesses' saw "Laci" walking "MacKenzie" (in black pants and white shirt :D) at the time when MacKenzie was found outside the Covena house with damp leash on?

After 10:18? I don't think so, simply because I think she was killed a long time BEFORE she could make arrangements to have the children raised, educated and skilled,
Jmo

JMO,
Lili

Beebee

03-30-2007, 10:32 AM

There's nothing remotely reasonable about the burglars scenario. It's just laughbale, IMO.

Before 10:18? I don't think so.
After 10:18? I don't think so, JMO,
Lili

Lili, you don't have to believe it was "the burglars" (just how many were there anyway?) that abducted Laci to see that the Aponte report is strong evidence that Todd and Laci had an encounter of some sort AFTER Scott was gone.

That ALONE is exculpatory for Scott! That is the main thing, imo. We are not investigators out in the field. If we were, we would have investigated the Tracy tip, instead of deciding it was too dangerous :rolleyes: . Seriously though.... if you can't see Todd as the abductor, maybe you should consider him a reluctant witness? The info is there, it fits.

Wudge

03-30-2007, 10:36 AM

There's nothing remotely reasonable about the burglars scenario. It's just laughbale, IMO.

Before 10:18? I don't think so. Otherwise, how does the Defense pretend to sustain their arguments that some 'witnesses' saw "Laci" walking "MacKenzie" (in black pants and white shirt :D) at the time when MacKenzie was found outside the Covena house with damp leash on?

After 10:18? I don't think so, simply because I think she was killed a long time BEFORE she could make arrangements to have the children raised, educated and skilled,
Jmo

JMO,
Lili

Cite the proof that Laci was murdered before 10:18AM?

enlightenme

03-30-2007, 11:24 AM

I agree. He was well aware of what the trial had cost already. Delucchi is nothing but a politician.

Delucchi was a seasoned, respected judge. He was retired, so he wasn't going to be elected to the bench again, ever.

He wanted a verdict, yes. All judges want a verdict but I doubt Delucchi would have lost any respect (or sleep) if the jury came back with NG.

MOO

accordn2me

03-30-2007, 01:17 PM

I don't think his actual safety was on the line. He may have been feeling a lot of pressure, but I seriously doubt his personal safety was at risk. He had the brains, imo, but not what it takes psychologically to withstand the pressure of a high profile case and popular public opinion. That's a shame really. He could have hung that jury if he could have dealt with the pressure, IMO.
Seriously-- there wasn't a single juror on the case that could have swayed my NG vote. None. I would have told anyone who attempted to bully me to STFU, period.
Yes, BB, juror 5 could have hung that jury IF he though Scott was not guilty. Or, juror 5 could have said/done things that would have required the judge to declare a mistrial. Juror 5 was very clear in words and actions that the other jurors were not the problem. Juror 5 was honest and honorable in that he believed during voir dire he could meet his civic duty and serve. He took an oath, then for whatever reason...like a "fit of conscience, or whatever" he realized he couldn't bring himself to be part of a capital murder case conviction. Rather than blame or falsely accuse his fellow jurors, he humbly took full responsibility, and explained his predicament to the judge.

Beebee

03-30-2007, 01:47 PM

he realized he couldn't bring himself to be part of a capital murder case conviction. Rather than blame or falsely accuse his fellow jurors, he humbly took full responsibility, and explained his predicament to the judge.

What was his predicament again? Please be specific and back up your assertions with a source.
thanks

accordn2me

03-30-2007, 02:32 PM

What was his predicament again? Please be specific and back up your assertions with a source.
thanksJuror 5: No, sir. I think that if I weren't there this jury would buckle down in a substantive way. We made substantial progress. We changed Forepersons. We took everything off the wall. We started again. The new Foreperson is doing an excellent job. Issues are up on the white board, the easel is being prepared. Then this issue with regard to Juror Number 7 yesterday came up. I had this fit of conscience, or whatever. And now we're back to frustration again. But, to answer your question, I think that the jury is very focused when it's -- when the time is appropriate, and people are focused. I think they are doing a terrific job.

The Court: But it's not -- I don't think it's a good idea for me to substitute you out as a juror just because you can't get along, or some people have some animus toward you. If I have to bring every juror back in here, I'm going to tell them that, you know, they are supposed to be concentrating on the facts and the jury instructions in this case in arriving at a decision.

Juror 5: Your Honor, I think they can do that. I'm not sure I can do that at this point.

---------->note: link was provided the first time I posted this in this thread

This is just an excerpt from the exchange between the judge and juror 5. I posted more and even tried to break it down into smaller, simpler parts earlier. At the risk of insulting your intelligence, I didn't do that in this response to your request for clarification on juror 5's predicament - a situation, especially an unpleasant, troublesome, or trying one from which extrication is difficult - and the source (juror 5 himself)

Beebee

03-30-2007, 02:51 PM

The Court: But it's not -- I don't think it's a good idea for me to substitute you out as a juror just because you can't get along, or some people have some animus toward you. If I have to bring every juror back in here, I'm going to tell them that, you know, they are supposed to be concentrating on the facts and the jury instructions in this case in arriving at a decision.

Thanks for reposting. So what was Delucchi's good cause?

accordn2me

03-30-2007, 03:53 PM

Thanks for reposting. So what was Delucchi's good cause?
You're welcome.

To your question, I'll go ahead and qualify my answer: This question is going to require me to intrepret what the juror was telling Delucchi. I do not believe I've seen a statement by the court explaining the decision so I won't have a "source" for you. (I'm reading Dr. Peterson's testimony...along with trying to keep up with all the latest and interesting discussions here...then I want to research whether or not Scott's boat had a fish finder and if it gave the water depth.) It might take me some time to get to looking to see if there is such a statement available from the court if you want me to do that.

Juror 5 went to Delucchi with an unwavering, direct request to be removed. J5 knew that this was possible b/c he was the replacement for the previous J5, IIRC. J5 tells the judge the jury is making substantial progress and doing an excellent job. J5 mentions, but does not elaborate on a "fit of conscience, or whatever." J5 admits that since that event, deliberations have stalled. J5 also states he is worried about his safety. He does not say why. Could it be that he figured a "fit of conscience, or whatever" would not be good enough reason for the court to dismiss him? Furthermore, in plain english, J5 tells Judge Delucchi that he can no longer fairly weigh the evidence.

What better cause is there than that?

If you believe that once deliberations have begun, there is no excuse for a juror to be replaced, and you are right about your belief, then I guess the judge made mistake and should be reversed.

Beebee

03-30-2007, 04:26 PM

You're welcome.

To your question, I'll go ahead and qualify my answer: This question is going to require me to intrepret what the juror was telling Delucchi. I do not believe I've seen a statement by the court explaining the decision so I won't have a "source" for you. (I'm reading Dr. Peterson's testimony...along with trying to keep up with all the latest and interesting discussions here...then I want to research whether or not Scott's boat had a fish finder and if it gave the water depth.) It might take me some time to get to looking to see if there is such a statement available from the court if you want me to do that.

Juror 5 went to Delucchi with an unwavering, direct request to be removed. J5 knew that this was possible b/c he was the replacement for the previous J5, IIRC. J5 tells the judge the jury is making substantial progress and doing an excellent job. J5 mentions, but does not elaborate on a "fit of conscience, or whatever." J5 admits that since that event, deliberations have stalled. J5 also states he is worried about his safety. He does not say why. Could it be that he figured a "fit of conscience, or whatever" would not be good enough reason for the court to dismiss him? Furthermore, in plain english, J5 tells Judge Delucchi that he can no longer fairly weigh the evidence.

What better cause is there than that?

If you believe that once deliberations have begun, there is no excuse for a juror to be replaced, and you are right about your belief, then I guess the judge made mistake and should be reversed.

It's WHY he could no longer be fair that is the secondary issue. The first issue is there was no good reason for him to be excused, legally. He wasn't refusing to serve, he was making a request. What legal reason did Delucchi give to release him from his duty? Delluchi should have called a mistrial if the tension in the jury room was the reason the juror could no longer fairly weigh the evidence. He did not.

JMO

attorneywan2be

03-30-2007, 04:35 PM

I don't think his actual safety was on the line. He may have been feeling a lot of pressure, but I seriously doubt his personal safety was at risk. .

But he did tell judge Delucchi that there were comments made to him personally that made him reflect on whether or not his safety was at issue..that indicates to me that he was verbally threatened..! if he took those verbal threats seriously then I can understand his concern..

accordn2me

03-30-2007, 04:41 PM

attorneywan2be

03-30-2007, 04:46 PM

It's WHY he could no longer be fair that is the secondary issue. The first issue is there was no good reason for him to be excused, legally. He wasn't refusing to serve, he was making a request. What legal reason did Delucchi give to release him from his duty? Delluchi should have called a mistrial if the tension in the jury room was the reason the juror could no longer fairly weigh the evidence. He did not.

JMO

I totally agree..in addition, juror 5 said something else that is very troubling..he was basically suggesting that the deliberations were result driven..this is very serious..yet the judge didn't investigate or declare a mistrial.:

Juror 5: When I took the oath, I understood it to mean that I needed to be able to weigh both sides fairly, openly. And given what's transpired, my individual ability to do that I think has been compromised to a degree that I would never know personally whether or not I was giving the community's verdict, the popular verdict, the expected verdict, the verdict that might, I don't know, produce the best book. I'm not going to speak to the media. I don't ever want to personally profit from this case in any way, directly or indirectly. I think I'm going to get on an airplane if you grant relief, literally.... But, your Honor, I did my level best.

attorneywan2be

03-30-2007, 04:48 PM

if it's true and J5 was threatened verbally, and he took those threats seriously, why do you suppose he didn't notify LE and have the issue resolved through proper channels?

As a juror..he did take it to the proper channels ----> judge Delucchi

accordn2me

03-30-2007, 05:18 PM

As a juror..he did take it to the proper channels ----> judge DelucchiJuror 5: "I have not been threatened bodily..."

J5 said that comments were made that made him reflect whether or not his safety was at issue.....

he did not say who made, nor where he heard those comments

not only did he not name or implicate other jurors, he praised them

I'll keep repeating this for you as long as you need me to. Maybe we should approach it from me asking you to state the specific threat (don't forget a link to the source), who made it, where it was made, and just for curiosity's sake, how you think it should have been handled by LE or Judge Delucchi.

Personally, if I'm verbally threatened, and I take it seriously and feel that my safety is at stake, I'm going to report it to LE and if it's not resolved to my satisfaction, I would report it to another agency. If in fact J5 did report a threat (looks or comment) to Judge Deluchi, apparently the judge resolved it to J5's satisfaction.

Lili007

04-01-2007, 05:50 AM

Can you please post the link that says he was concerned about his saftey and Judge Delucchi wouldn't investigate?

Thank you.

Pssst... TopGunner... don't hold your breath...

JMO,
Lili

Wudge

04-01-2007, 11:46 AM

But he did tell judge Delucchi that there were comments made to him personally that made him reflect on whether or not his safety was at issue..that indicates to me that he was verbally threatened..! if he took those verbal threats seriously then I can understand his concern..

Jackson told Judge Delucchi that he felt his safety was at issue. This represented a juror coercion issue, and juror coercion is a grave 6th Amendment issue.

Judge Delucchi was obligated to fully investigate to determine the source of Jackson's concern for his safety. To say the least, Judge Delucchi did not fully investigate the matter. A matter upon which Jackson's removal was predicated.

Based on Judge Delucchi's own failure, just cause for Jackson's removal is necessarily absent in the trial record.

attorneywan2be

04-01-2007, 07:03 PM

Jackson told Judge Delucchi that he felt his safety was at issue. This represented a juror coercion issue, and juror coercion is a grave 6th Amendment issue.

Judge Delucchi was obligated to fully investigate to determine the source of Jackson's concern for his safety. To say the least, Judge Delucchi did not fully investigate the matter. A matter upon which Jackson's removal was predicated.

Based on Judge Delucchi's own failure, just cause for Jackson's removal is necessarily absent in the trial record.

I totally agree Wudge..!

Wudge

04-01-2007, 10:55 PM

Jackson was bordering on juror misconduct as regards Fran Gorman's independent internet search, by trying to to tell others it was ok to keep it a secret. As far as the trial records, it is possible the judge ordered the part sealed which would mean it could only be used after permission from the court.

There is no indication that any part of the chamber hearing(s) on Jackson was/were sealed.

What I believe poises a grave threat to Judge Delucchi having "just cause" for Jackson's removal is his response to Jackson after Jackson told him he felt threatened with comments, looks.

Judge Delucchi asked him: Who is responsible for these comments?

Jackson responded: Your Honor. I prefer not to do that, or go there, except to say I have tried mightliy. I'm at the end of what I think I can reasonably do with this jury to weigh the evidence fairly. I don't think I can weigh the evidence fairly any longer.

[Geragos called for a mistrial. This represents a true crisis moment predicated on a juror feeling threatened by other jurors. Judge Delucchi is responsible to do all that he can reasonably do to cure the threat.However, instead of questioning all the jurors, he only questioned the new foreman, Steve Cardosi.]

Gregory Jackson was a far more serious situation than existed with Justin Falconer. In that investigation Judge Delucchi conducted a far, far, far more extensive and through investigation.

The jury had been deliberating for over half a week. Gregory Jackson was the original foreman. It was beyond intuitively obvious that he was at odds with other jurors in the deliberation room. Judge Delucchi had the option of granting Geragos's request for a mistrial. Instead, he chose to remove Jackson (the third juror removed and the third juror removed in which John Guinasso made a central role).

I believe Judge Delucchi's decision to remove Gregory Jackson may well not be seen as the last resort that he had, and/or that the meager trial record Judge Delucchi established on the Jackson situation may well not be seen to represent "just cause". If so, the verdict will be reversed, jeopardy will attach and Scott will walk away.

accordn2me

04-02-2007, 12:09 AM

Lili007

04-02-2007, 12:25 AM

May I remind everyone that juror 5 praised the other jurors. Juror 5 told the judge he had a "fit of conscience, or whatever" and could no longer fairly weigh the evidence. Juror 5 never said the looks and comments that caused him to reflect whether or not his safety was at issue here came from any of the other jurors.

Indeed.

However, I can understand that some posters on the defense side can't let the truth interfere with a good story, or legal jargon - they equal each other.

JMO

accordn2me

04-02-2007, 12:37 AM

Indeed.

However, I can understand that some posters on the defense side can't let the truth interfere with a good story, or legal jargon - they equal each other.

JMO
Some posters on the defense side believe, and have posted supporting cases from states other than CA, that there is no good cause for a juror to be replaced once deliberations have begun.

I don't know if this is true for CA. If it is true, it doesn't make sense to retain alternates after deliberation begins. If it is OK for a juror to be replaced after deliberations begin if the judge has "good cause" what is better cause than the juror telling the judge they can no longer weigh the evidence fairly after having a "fit of conscience, or whatever?" Juror 5 took full blame for holding the others back from fufulling their oaths as jurors. If that's not good cause, what is?

Lili007

04-02-2007, 01:33 AM

Some posters on the defense side believe, and have posted supporting cases from states other than CA, that there is no good cause for a juror to be replaced once deliberations have begun.

I don't know if this is true for CA. If it is true, it doesn't make sense to retain alternates after deliberation begins. If it is OK for a juror to be replaced after deliberations begin if the judge has "good cause" what is better cause than the juror telling the judge they can no longer weigh the evidence fairly after having a "fit of conscience, or whatever?" Juror 5 took full blame for holding the others back from fufulling their oaths as jurors. If that's not good cause, what is?

I totally agree.

But I expect you'll get a different reaction from Wudge.

accordn2me

04-02-2007, 03:04 PM

I totally agree.

But I expect you'll get a different reaction from Wudge.I used a four-letter word (NONE - as in "NONE of the evidence points away from Scott") with Wudge and he put he on his ignore list.:shrug:

thinkaboutit

04-02-2007, 03:16 PM

Juror 5: "I have not been threatened bodily..."

J5 said that comments were made that made him reflect whether or not his safety was at issue.....

he did not say who made, nor where he heard those comments

not only did he not name or implicate other jurors, he praised them

I'll keep repeating this for you as long as you need me to. Maybe we should approach it from me asking you to state the specific threat (don't forget a link to the source), who made it, where it was made, and just for curiosity's sake, how you think it should have been handled by LE or Judge Delucchi.

Personally, if I'm verbally threatened, and I take it seriously and feel that my safety is at stake, I'm going to report it to LE and if it's not resolved to my satisfaction, I would report it to another agency. If in fact J5 did report a threat (looks or comment) to Judge Deluchi, apparently the judge resolved it to J5's satisfaction.

Sorry - admittedly I only spent a few minutes flipping through this discussion - so if you already provided this - my apologies - but what are you interpreting as praise for the other jurors?

accordn2me

04-02-2007, 03:21 PM

Sorry - admittedly I only spent a few minutes flipping through this discussion - so if you already provided this - my apologies - but what are you interpreting as praise for the other jurors?
It's in that first post of transcript (and others) I posted on this subject. J5 said the jury was making substantial progress since they elected a new foreman. He said they were doing an excellent job! Never did he say the looks and comments that caused him to reflect on whether or not his safety was at issue came from his fellow jurors.

JustMyOpinion

04-02-2007, 05:00 PM

The other jurors have stated more than once since that they wanted to take an immediate vote without going through the evidence. A reasonable person could conclude that this meant they did not want to deliberate - only the foreman did.

You appear to draw that conclusion. I don't think it is at all uncommon for jurors to take a preliminary vote prior to beginning deliberations, just to see where people are. I've heard other jurors speak of this in other cases.

Wudge

04-02-2007, 05:58 PM

Indeed.

However, I can understand that some posters on the defense side can't let the truth interfere with a good story, or legal jargon - they equal each other.

JMO

Lil, the ruling in People v. Delamora (1996) should clearly demostrate the juror removal issue seriously threatens the standing verdict. And post-verdict statements by John Guinasso (and other jurors) have added significantly to what was a fiery issue prior to the verdict. Moreover, both Guinasso and other jurors have created new fiery and highly significant appeal issues.

As an example, John Guinasso was given notice by the D.A.'s office that Geragos's juror removal appeal issue had crosshairs trained on him. I've posted elsewhere that Guinasso's response was to effectively spit in Scott's face. I'll repost here.

"Once empaneled, a Judge needs to establish that cause good exists and ensure that it is secured and articulated in the trial record. A juror who simply says "I want off" has not provided good cause for their removal.

Juror removal is rare. Having three primary jurors removed in a trial is unheard of. Having a single juror (John Guinasso) centrally involved in the removal of jurors they were at odds with smacks of jury rigging (Sixth Amendment violation).

John Guinasso told ABC news: "If he (Gregory Jackson) was to remain on the case I think we would have had a hung jury,".

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=529820&page=1

Further, during a pre-sentencing interview in March 2005, Guinasso also said: "I didn't want to be part of a tainted process. It's got to be fair". In that same interview Guinasso went on to also say: "I go by the rules".

http://www.modbee.com/reports/peterson/trial/story/10107564p-10931862c.html

Having said made those statements, on March 16th, 2005, John Guinasso went on the Larry King show and told the nation that two days earlier, he had been advised he was central to Geragos's motion for a new trial (re: Sixth Amendment violation) after which he tells Larry King that he was "fair". Then in his very next breath, he establishes, without any doubt whatsoever, that he held Scott's right to remain silent against him (Fifth Amendment violation). I kid you not,; after telling Larry King and the nation that he was "fair", he immediately shows that he could care less about Constitutional rights. That was truly a spit-in-your-face moment by John (I go by the rules) Guinasso.

Larry King Show, March 16, 2005

Right now, checking in from New York is John Guinasso, Peterson juror No. 8. I erred and said he was at the -- he was the only juror probably not there today.

John, why didn't you attend?

JOHN GUINASSO, PETERSON JUROR NO. 8: I received a phone call from the Stanislaus County on Friday. And they were notifying me that Mr. Geragos had mentioned in one of his motions for a new trial that I was implemented [sic]. And I didn't want to be a negative media attraction to the other jurors. They deserve better than that. I wish to take another forum.

KING: Are you in the appeal then?

GUINASSO: I'm in one of his motions that he filed for a new trial.

KING: Saying that you did what?

GUINASSO: Saying that I had targeted maybe defense jurors.

KING: In other words, that you weren't fair?

GUINASSO: According to Mr. Geragos, that I wasn't fair. I was actually the opposite, I was very fair.

KING: Do you have any qualms about the sentence?

GUINASSO: No. The sentence is appropriate. It's -- I'm honored that Judge Delucchi stuck with our verdict.

KING: What, if anything, was the determining factor in this case, John?

GUINASSO: It's probably the most obvious, and that is where the bodies washed up. I can personally say for myself, if they would never have washed up, I could never have convicted Scott Peterson.

KING: So in other words, those bodies not found, there's no way he could have been -- you wouldn't have had a corpus delicti?

GUINASSO: Correct. It was two miles from where he went fishing, and for me, it wasn't a coincidence.

KING: Could he have helped himself if he took the witness stand?

GUINASSO: If Scott Peterson took the witness stand during the penalty phase, I would have voted life in prison. I wanted to hear from him. I wanted to hear some remorse. I never heard that.

(I can only but imagine what the D.A.'s office told Guinasso after he got off Larry King's show. :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:)

attorneywan2be

04-02-2007, 06:34 PM

Lil, the ruling in People v. Delamora (1996) should clearly demostrate the juror removal issue seriously threatens the standing verdict. And post-verdict statements by John Guinasso (and other jurors) have added significantly to what was a fiery issue prior to the verdict. Moreover, both Guinasso and other jurors have created new fiery and highly significant appeal issues.

As an example, John Guinasso was given notice by the D.A.'s office that Geragos's juror removal appeal issue had crosshairs trained on him. I've posted elsewhere that Guinasso's response was to effectively spit in Scott's face. I'll repost here.

"Once empaneled, a Judge needs to establish that cause good exists and ensure that it is secured and articulated in the trial record. A juror who simply says "I want off" has not provided good cause for their removal.

Juror removal is rare. Having three primary jurors removed in a trial is unheard of. Having a single juror (John Guinasso) centrally involved in the removal of jurors they were at odds with smacks of jury rigging (Sixth Amendment violation).

John Guinasso told ABC news: "If he (Gregory Jackson) was to remain on the case I think we would have had a hung jury,".

http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=529820&page=1

Further, during a pre-sentencing interview in March 2005, Guinasso also said: "I didn't want to be part of a tainted process. It's got to be fair". In that same interview Guinasso went on to also say: "I go by the rules".

http://www.modbee.com/reports/peterson/trial/story/10107564p-10931862c.html

Having said made those statements, on March 16th, 2005, John Guinasso went on the Larry King show and told the nation that two days earlier, he had been advised he was central to Geragos's motion for a new trial (re: Sixth Amendment violation) after which he tells Larry King that he was "fair". Then in his very next breath, he establishes, without any doubt whatsoever, that he held Scott's right to remain silent against him (Fifth Amendment violation). I kid you not,; after telling Larry King and the nation that he was "fair", he immediately shows that he could care less about Constitutional rights. That was truly a spit-in-your-face moment by John (I go by the rules) Guinasso.

Larry King Show, March 16, 2005

Right now, checking in from New York is John Guinasso, Peterson juror No. 8. I erred and said he was at the -- he was the only juror probably not there today.

John, why didn't you attend?

JOHN GUINASSO, PETERSON JUROR NO. 8: I received a phone call from the Stanislaus County on Friday. And they were notifying me that Mr. Geragos had mentioned in one of his motions for a new trial that I was implemented [sic]. And I didn't want to be a negative media attraction to the other jurors. They deserve better than that. I wish to take another forum.

KING: Are you in the appeal then?

GUINASSO: I'm in one of his motions that he filed for a new trial.

KING: Saying that you did what?

GUINASSO: Saying that I had targeted maybe defense jurors.

KING: In other words, that you weren't fair?

GUINASSO: According to Mr. Geragos, that I wasn't fair. I was actually the opposite, I was very fair.

KING: Do you have any qualms about the sentence?

GUINASSO: No. The sentence is appropriate. It's -- I'm honored that Judge Delucchi stuck with our verdict.

KING: What, if anything, was the determining factor in this case, John?

GUINASSO: It's probably the most obvious, and that is where the bodies washed up. I can personally say for myself, if they would never have washed up, I could never have convicted Scott Peterson.

KING: So in other words, those bodies not found, there's no way he could have been -- you wouldn't have had a corpus delicti?

GUINASSO: Correct. It was two miles from where he went fishing, and for me, it wasn't a coincidence.

KING: Could he have helped himself if he took the witness stand?

GUINASSO: If Scott Peterson took the witness stand during the penalty phase, I would have voted life in prison. I wanted to hear from him. I wanted to hear some remorse. I never heard that.

(I can only but imagine what the D.A.'s office told Guinasso after he got off Larry King's show. :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:)

Outstanding post!!..

I have no doubt in my mind that the verdict will be reversed..

Anne2719

04-02-2007, 07:18 PM

True, However the jury claimed they completely re-deliberated the entire trial in less than 6 hours. That is very telling. We've all spent way more time than that on these boards.
If everyone is in agreement from the start, what is there to deliberate? Didn't a juror say the foreman who was removed would have caused a hung jury?

accordn2me

04-02-2007, 07:50 PM

The other jurors have stated more than once since that they wanted to take an immediate vote without going through the evidence. A reasonable person could conclude that this meant they did not want to deliberate - only the foreman did.

There were 2 Juror 5s, right? I don't believe the one that said he could no longer fairly weigh the evidence was the foreman #5.

If a juror tells the judge he can no longer fairly weigh the evidence and that juror will not name any other juror as being his reason for that..."fit of conscience, or whatever" is that not good cause for replacing the juror.

'No longer fairly weigh the evidence' is not good enough cause to replace a juror?

Wudge

04-02-2007, 08:04 PM

Let us suppose that just as you walk out of a corner store someone else walks in and finds the owner murdered. Clearly you would be a suspect in that case.

If, however, the store you left was 2 miles away from that in which the owner was murdered are you not then less likely to be a suspect?

Alternatively, if the date on which you were in the store was 4 months before the crime was discovered, surely you are also less likely to be regarded as a suspect in the crime.

And then you must combine these two factors.

Alternatively, imagine your wife's body is found in an empty lot on the corner of 9th St and 8th Avenue. Imagine that it can be shown that you drove past the corner of 9th St and 24th Avenue four months before. How would that serve as evidence of guilt?

It may be argued that the conditions are different in each case. True; however these examples show that both the relationship in time and the relationship in space are significant and must be considered as part of the analysis. This was not done - only an unproven and unprovable theory was offered without facts to back it up. The jury was invited to assume an unproven connection between Scott and the bodies. That they did this brings shame on all involved.

Yet this is the 'bedrock evidence' on which the jury convicted Scott.

Proximity would make you a suspect, but it does not address the biggest gap, premeditation. Nevertheless, major differences exist between this case and your hypothetical.

LE undertook a months long search of the bay making multiple sweeps using grid-controlled, 150% overlap patterns. Nothing was found in the shallow bay, no bodies, no mythical anchors, nothing. Moreover, it was widely broadcast where Scott had taken his boat on Xmas. And, to say the least, Scott freely admitting that he was at the bay is a stunning statement against self-interest, which makes it exculpatory.

Also, the mineralization on Laci's pants precludes the State's submerging theory. Further, testimony by the State's expert witness, Dr. Cheng, did not support the State's storyline either. Further yet, the twine around Connor's neck defies the law of physics.

Tarps, death scents on tarps, rock jetty, Hoffman marsh, etc., etc..

Net, proximity alone cannot hurdle proof beyond a reasonable doubt, adaptively or not.

Anne2719

04-02-2007, 08:20 PM

Wudge

04-02-2007, 08:30 PM

Wudge, when you use the word "premeditation," how would you define it? My understanding is that the legal definition of premeditation doesn't give a specific length of time -- I've heard that even the length of time it takes for a victim to say "Don't kill me!" is enough. I could be wrong; that's just what I remember hearing.

Correct.

The definition of "premeditation" is somewhat ambiguous and can easily be misleading. The legal defintion of "premeditation" is with planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation regarding any act depends on the person and the circumstances. After forming the intent, the time must be long enough to act and for the person to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the act.

As far as I know, you must have prior planning to have premeditation. The same is true with self defense where you must prove you were acting in fear of your life and that reason for why you killed someone. If all that exists is the thought of: "I must kill this person or they will kill me", then that is not proof of self defense.

Unless it came from the defendant's mouth, I know on no way premeditation could be "proven" in an instant, and the words in the legal definition are deliberation and planning. The definition for both of those words indicate that this is not an "instant" process. Although the definition states that it depends on the circumstances and the person and indicates that it could be "instantaneous" those two words indicate that it can not.

Still, the big thing is to prove it in court, and that means the prosecutors must prove deliberation and planning.

Wudge

04-02-2007, 08:43 PM

The murder of Martha Moreno by her boyfriend Gilberto Cano shows clear evidence of that. He deliberately stabbed her in the belly to kill their child before strangling her and admitted as much. Also given to Distaso, Fladager and Harris for prosecution, they claimed the evidence was not sufficient and pled him down to 2nd degree - 17 years in prison. That's what happens when you aren't white and there are no TV cameras I guess.

Intent and planning are key. The jurors said Scott planned to murder Laci, but he did not plan to murder Connor. Thus, their split verdict.

(Aristotle, where are you?)

Wudge

04-02-2007, 10:44 PM

Since he still got death, don't you think they were trying to say they didn't go after him to the max but actually still do that?

Cardosi said: "For everything the defendant said stating that he didn't want children, he also showed examples where he was good with kids, he played with kids and everything else," he said. "It couldn't be concluded that there was definitely premeditation on the killing or murder of his son,"

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/121304_jurors_ctv.html

(Why am I hearing Looney Tunes playing?)

JustMyOpinion

04-03-2007, 08:46 AM

Cardosi said: "For everything the defendant said stating that he didn't want children, he also showed examples where he was good with kids, he played with kids and everything else," he said. "It couldn't be concluded that there was definitely premeditation on the killing or murder of his son,"

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/121304_jurors_ctv.html

(Why am I hearing Looney Tunes playing?)

It seems to me Cardosi is opining that there was sufficient evidence presented that Scott was good with children, liked children, that the State did not prove to him that Scott had malice toward his unborn son sufficient to motivate him to murder Laci in order to intentionally murder his unborn son.

Wudge

04-03-2007, 09:08 AM

It seems to me Cardosi is opining that there was sufficient evidence presented that Scott was good with children, liked children, that the State did not prove to him that Scott had malice toward his unborn son sufficient to motivate him to murder Laci in order to intentionally murder his unborn son.

Jurors cannot logically say Scott murdered to gain his freedom, but he only planned to murder Laci.

Their split verdict is infirmed.

JustMyOpinion

04-03-2007, 09:14 AM

Jurors cannot logically say Scott murdered to gain his freedom, but he only planned to murder Laci.

Their split verdict is infirmed.

I wasn't aware that motive was a necessary element of proof, nor have I heard "jurors" make a claim that they deliberated & determined Scott's motive in murdering Laci. I have heard & read others offering opinions on what they believe his motivation was. Can you post a link to "jurors" stating they deliberated & concluded Scott's actual motive for intentionally murdering Laci?

Wudge

04-03-2007, 10:40 AM

I wasn't aware that motive was a necessary element of proof, nor have I heard "jurors" make a claim that they deliberated & determined Scott's motive in murdering Laci. I have heard & read others offering opinions on what they believe his motivation was. Can you post a link to "jurors" stating they deliberated & concluded Scott's actual motive for intentionally murdering Laci?

Correct, motive is not a necessary element.

However, without a confession or eyewitness, the proof of premeditation must be derived from forensic evidence, and/or cause of death and/or time of death and/or place of death and/or motive.

If all of those evidentiary elements of murder are unproven (as in this case), it is impossible to prove premeditation.

Hence, jurors' post-trial statements establish there is insufficient evidence to support the verdict (another appeal issue derived from or supported by post-trial juror statements).

Wudge

04-03-2007, 11:03 AM

JustMyOpinion

04-03-2007, 11:12 AM

Larry King Show 12-14-04

KING: And what do you think his motive was?

BERATLIS: You know, Larry, I think if we all knew the motive, if there was this one thing that stuck out, we'd probably have the answer to the whole thing.

Thanks. So, Bertalis is saying if "we all" ( not sure he is only referring to the jury) knew the motive, "we'd" ( not sure again who "we" is) have the answer to the whole thing. Bertalis did not say he personally had determined a motive, or, that the entire jury had deliberated and formed an opinion as to motive. They weren't required to do this to find him guilty ( although I think the State did bring some evidence a juror could utilize toward motive if they had a personal need to try and understand "why"..) I've not heard any juror say they have decided why, have you?

Wudge

04-03-2007, 11:35 AM

Thanks. So, Bertalis is saying if "we all" ( not sure he is only referring to the jury) knew the motive, "we'd" ( not sure again who "we" is) have the answer to the whole thing. Bertalis did not say he personally had determined a motive, or, that the entire jury had deliberated and formed an opinion as to motive. They weren't required to do this to find him guilty ( although I think the State did bring some evidence a juror could utilize toward motive if they had a personal need to try and understand "why"..) I've not heard any juror say they have decided why, have you?

Beratlis's "if/then" statement conditions deductive logic, not inductive. Further, Beratlis himself is included in "We". At the very least, motive was unclear in his mind.

For motive to have been used to support the verdict, 12 jurors had to agree. Beratlis proved that did not happen. Thus, motive is necessarily absent as an element supporting the verdict.

JustMyOpinion

04-03-2007, 12:16 PM

attorneywan2be

04-03-2007, 07:25 PM

Beratlis's "if/then" statement conditions deductive logic, not inductive. Further, Beratlis himself is included in "We". At the very least, motive was unclear in his mind.

For motive to have been used to support the verdict, 12 jurors had to agree. Beratlis proved that did not happen. Thus, motive is necessarily absent as an element supporting the verdict.

I totally agree Wudge..I also read your pervious posts regarding this subject, you presented excellent irrefutable logical arguments that prove that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict..-------> a powerful appeal issue

Wudge

04-03-2007, 07:38 PM

Yes. It isn't needed of course, but it's always confusing if you don't know.

Most people find the domestic type killings like that: the guy who kills his children and/or his wife then shoots himself. One notorious case was the police chief of Tacoma WA who shot his wife in public and then shot himself.
A police chief's incomprehensible, bewildering crime (http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/projects/david_brame/shooting/story/3856156p-3455329c.html)
The question is why shoot her? Why not just kill yourself?

However, CE is fine for a conviction. When you go into Jeff Dahmer's apartment and find him cooking up parts of humans on the stove, "You got some 'splaining to do".

What was missing in this case was any CE that went to guilt and had no innocent explanation. What we have is a mountain of CE all of which goes to Scott's innocence. Even if there was a hell of a motive, and there was none, it would still be incompetent of any jury to convict him. So "means, motive, opportunity" apply fiercely to the burglars and not at all to Scott.

I agree there was a lack of CE to support the murder one charge. My intent in preceding posts was to provide 24K gold logic in support of that belief.

Given that there is no eye witness, no confession, no cause of death, no time of death, no place of death, no murder weapon, no crime scene and no probative forsensic evidence (beyond the bodies), then premeditation could only be established if the jury agreed on a motive. However, I believe posts #153, #154 and #157 prove that the jury reached its verdict absent motive.

If the jury's verdict was decided absent motive, then that would make it impossible for the jury to have found premeditation existed. Thereby, proving the jury's verdict of murder one was infirmed, because sufficient evidence to support the verdict was necessarily lacking.

Please review and advise.

(Move over Guinasso. Beratlis wants his name on an appeal issue too.)

Beebee

04-04-2007, 08:07 AM

Beratlis's "if/then" statement conditions deductive logic, not inductive. Further, Beratlis himself is included in "We". At the very least, motive was unclear in his mind.

For motive to have been used to support the verdict, 12 jurors had to agree. Beratlis proved that did not happen. Thus, motive is necessarily absent as an element supporting the verdict.

Wudge,

This jury was so confused, they thought Laci was premeditated, but Conner wasn't..... how much sense does that make?

Then we have Richelle Nice writing Scott in the hopes that he would confess "so everybody would feel better"-- I don't have the exact quote handy, but it was something very much along those lines.

Beebee

04-04-2007, 08:16 AM

JustMyOpinion

04-04-2007, 08:27 AM

Wudge,

This jury was so confused, they thought Laci was premeditated, but Conner wasn't..... how much sense does that make?

Then we have Richelle Nice writing Scott in the hopes that he would confess "so everybody would feel better"-- I don't have the exact quote handy, but it was something very much along those lines.
I don't agree it appears the jury was confused. I think the State proved Scott had malice toward Laci, but was unable to prove he harbored same toward Conner. Richelle Nice wanting to feel better emotionally is quite sensible in light of what she has revealed about her own struggle since serving on the jury, IMO. She has said she has no doubts about her verdict.

Wudge

04-04-2007, 09:24 AM

Wudge,

You are right. All I can figure is it wasn't exactly a mensa meeting going on in that jury room.

It was an emotional verdict, period, based on media demonzation that was so intense it was impossible to seat a jury who wasn't affected by it. Logic went out the window (what little that was there).

I agree Beebee. It's now obvious the verdict lack evidentiary support, which would leave emotion for its basis.

It's been over two years since we discovered Bates #14765 proves the burglars were there on 12/24, not 12/26.

Now I think Greg Beratlis's statement proves the jury reached its verdict absent motive, which means there is insufficient evidence to support it. Given it's strong deductive base, I suspect Cliff Gardner will really take to this appeal issue.

JustMyOpinion

04-04-2007, 09:31 AM

. It's now obvious the verdict lack evidentiary support, which would leave emotion for its basis.

.

This is obvious to you. It is not at all obvious to me. There was plenty of evidence to support the verdict, IMO. As for emotion, I think they played a part during the sentencing deliberations, it would be difficult to review some evidence ( i.e. photos of Laci's remains ) without experiencing strong emotions, IMO.

Beebee

04-04-2007, 09:38 AM

I agree Beebee. It's now obvious the verdict lack evidentiary support, which would leave emotion for its basis.

It's been over two years since we discovered Bates #14765 proves the burglars were there on 12/24, not 12/26.

Now I think Greg Beratlis's statement proves the jury reached its verdict absent motive, which means there is insufficient evidence to support it. Given it's strong deductive base, I suspect Cliff Gardner will really take to this appeal issue.

Wudge,

The sad part is Delucchi knew, imo, but he used the timeline of Karen Servas to discount the Medina burglary as having anything to do with Laci's disappearance. He thought it was gospel that Mac was found at 10:18. He also knew the Medina's left at 10:30.

Interesting the Medinas, with all the activity packing the car did not see Karen or Mac.

enlightenme

04-04-2007, 09:58 AM

I agree there was a lack of CE to support the murder one charge. My intent in preceding posts was to provide 24K gold logic in support of that belief.

Given that there is no eye witness, no confession, no cause of death, no time of death, no place of death, no murder weapon, no crime scene and no probative forsensic evidence (beyond the bodies), then premeditation could only be established if the jury agreed on a motive. However, I believe posts #153, #154 and #157 prove that the jury reached its verdict absent motive.

If the jury's verdict was decided absent motive, then that would make it impossible for the jury to have found premeditation existed. Thereby, proving the jury's verdict of murder one was infirmed, because sufficient evidence to support the verdict was necessarily lacking.

Please review and advise.

(Move over Guinasso. Beratlis wants his name on an appeal issue too.)

The prosecution does not have to prove motive so therefore the jury does NOT have to establish motive, even for premeditation.

Motive is the very hardest thing to prove without a confession because it's impossible to get inside someone's head and read their mind. Oft-times murderers lie or don't talk at all.

It could be that Scott was sick and tired of Laci's talking, cleaning, to-do lists, and the mundane "pick up the dry cleaning" acts of everyday married life.

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

Partial taped phone call with Amber soon after Laci disappeared:

SP - Okay, I might be up by then so I may call and we can share an evening or two. I'd like to talk to you at that time.

AF - I guess I .....

SP - To me it's the most intimate time.

AF - Uh-hum. The most intimate time because?

pg 41

SP - Just because of the time of day. Our....our psyches are, you know, kinda relaxed and you are focused on relationships as opposed to getting up in the morning and doing things or, you know, going to pick up the dry cleaning, things like that.

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

Or searching for your missing wife? At least WORRYING about her instead of talking about intimate relationships and relaxed psyches with your lover. :shrug:

JMO

enlightenme

04-04-2007, 10:01 AM

Wudge,

The sad part is Delucchi knew, imo, but he used the timeline of Karen Servas to discount the Medina burglary as having anything to do with Laci's disappearance. He thought it was gospel that Mac was found at 10:18. He also knew the Medina's left at 10:30.

Interesting the Medinas, with all the activity packing the car did not see Karen or Mac.

Delucchi specified "under one interpretation of the evidence". That was not his only reason for denying this particular motion. He gave several.

Wudge

04-04-2007, 10:06 AM

I don't agree it appears the jury was confused. I think the State proved Scott had malice toward Laci, but was unable to prove he harbored same toward Conner. Richelle Nice wanting to feel better emotionally is quite sensible in light of what she has revealed about her own struggle since serving on the jury, IMO. She has said she has no doubts about her verdict.

If I am right on the lack of proof of "premeditation", necessarily there is also a lack of evidence of "intent".

Intent is a necessary condition for malice (murder two). If intent cannot be proved, malice cannot be proved.

Therefore, there would be insufficient evidence to support the jury reaching a verdict on a charge of either murder one or murder two.

If the above is true and given that Judge Delucchi did not instruct the jury on manslaughter, should an appeals Court agree that intent was not proved as regards Laci, jeopardy should attach to both her murder one charge and murder two charge.

Moreover, post-trial statements by jurors establish that the jury did not find sufficient evidence that Scott planned to murder Connor. Given the lack of both premeditation and intent to murder Laci, the jury's verdict of murder two for Connor should be reversed with jeopardy attaching there, too.

Net, Scott should be a free man.

(To be adjudged by an Appellate Court.)

Wudge

04-04-2007, 10:22 AM

This is obvious to you. It is not at all obvious to me. There was plenty of evidence to support the verdict, IMO. As for emotion, I think they played a part during the sentencing deliberations, it would be difficult to review some evidence ( i.e. photos of Laci's remains ) without experiencing strong emotions, IMO.

If you agree with my posts #153, #154, and #157, and you said that you did agree. Then the jury reached its verdict lacking proof of both premeditation and intent.

All else that I have said necessarily follows.

JustMyOpinion

04-04-2007, 10:33 AM

If you agree with my posts #153, #154, and #157, and you said that you did agree. Then the jury reached its verdict lacking proof of both premeditation and intent.

All else that I have said necessarily follows.
I agreed with your opinion that the jury did not deliberate and determine his motive. They did have sufficient evidence showing premeditation and intent, IMO.

enlightenme

04-04-2007, 10:49 AM

I agreed with your opinion that the jury did not deliberate and determine his motive. They did have sufficient evidence showing premeditation and intent, IMO.

I think it's really optomistic to think Scott's sentence will ever be reversed with jeopary so that he cannot be retried. Wudge is trying hard though. I hope he doesn't get the Petersons hopes up too far with this.

How often does this really happen in other DP verdicts? I'd say the odds are slim to non-existent.

JMO

JustMyOpinion

04-04-2007, 10:52 AM

I think it's really optomistic to think Scott's sentence will ever be reversed with jeopary so that he cannot be retried.

I am in total agreement.

Wudge

04-04-2007, 10:55 AM

I agreed with your opinion that the jury did not deliberate and determine his motive. They did have sufficient evidence showing premeditation and intent, IMO.

Given that there is: no eye witness, no confession, no cause of death, no time of death, no place of death, no murder weapon, no crime scene and no probative forsensic evidence (beyond the bodies), then premeditation (and intent) could only have been proved though motive, because motive is the only remaining source from which evidentiary support for premeditation (and intent) could have been drawn.

Hence, if we agree (and we do) that the jury reached its decision absent motive, there is no valid inculpatory evidence source left that could have provided evidence to support a valid finding of either premeditation or intent.

JustMyOpinion

04-04-2007, 11:17 AM

[QUOTE=Wudge;8836654]Given that there is: no eye witness, no confession, no cause of death, no time of death, no place of death, no murder weapon, no crime scene and no probative forsensic evidence (beyond the bodies), then premeditation (and intent) could only have been proved though motive, because motive is the only remaining source from which evidentiary support for premeditation (and intent) could have been drawn.

QUOTE]

He wanted Laci gone,( he told others she never existed, told others she had already been lost). This motive is obvious, it required no deliberation, IMO. Again, I believe there was sufficient evidence showing premeditation, intent, & malice. Also,neither you or I were present in the deliberation room, , there's nothing known about their actual deliberations, IMO, and parsing a few comments individuals have made since the verdict is proof of nothing.

Wudge

04-04-2007, 11:41 AM

SNIP

He wanted Laci gone,( he told others she never existed, told others she had already been lost). This motive is obvious, it required no deliberation, IMO. Again, I believe there was sufficient evidence showing premeditation, intent, & malice. Also,neither you or I were present in the deliberation room, , there's nothing known about their actual deliberations, IMO, and parsing a few comments individuals have made since the verdict is proof of nothing.

The point was and remains that the jurors reached a verdict absent motive. Therefore, the jury did not conclude that "lost my wife" was dispositive of motive. Again, we both agree that the jury decided "nothing" proved motive.

Premeditation and intent had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt through a valid evidentiary source. Since motive was not so proven, it cannot be that source. And given all of the others sources I cited were dry of such evidence, I truly know of no remaining inculpatory evidence source upon which the jury could have drawn evidence that proved premeditation and or intent.

If you think there is another inculpatory evidence source from which proof of premeditation and/or intent could been validly reached, please tell me what that source is.

JustMyOpinion

04-04-2007, 12:21 PM

The point was and remains that the jurors reached a verdict absent motive. Therefore, the jury did not conclude that "lost my wife" was dispositive of motive. Again, we both agree that the jury decided "nothing" proved motive.

Premeditation and intent had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt through a valid evidentiary source. Since motive was not so proven, it cannot be that source. And given all of the others sources I cited were dry of such evidence, I truly know of no remaining inculpatory evidence source upon which the jury could have drawn evidence that proved premeditation and or intent.

If you think there is another inculpatory evidence source from which proof of premeditation and/or intent could been validly reached, please tell me what that source is.

Again, I don't believe anyone outside the jury room can possibly claim to know how they reached their verdict, what they said during deliberations, what evidence they utilized as proof of guilt beyond their individual & collective reasonable doubt. Motive is not a required element of proof, and the fact that some jurors have made it clear they don't know "why" is indicative to me that they did not reach a unanimous decision about Scott's precise motive(s) for murder. This doesn't mean they didn't discuss the evidence as to his state of mind, his actions. ( and how these may have shown premeditation, intent, malice) IMO. Many of the jurors who have given interviews say they deliberated the facts in evidence. I have no reason to disbelieve them, and they appear to me to have done their best to deliberate as instructed. It appears you disagree and have found much fault with their verdict based on a few statements individual jurors have made.

Wudge

04-04-2007, 01:36 PM

Again, I don't believe anyone outside the jury room can possibly claim to know how they reached their verdict, what they said during deliberations, what evidence they utilized as proof of guilt beyond their individual & collective reasonable doubt. Motive is not a required element of proof, and the fact that some jurors have made it clear they don't know "why" is indicative to me that they did not reach a unanimous decision about Scott's precise motive(s) for murder. This doesn't mean they didn't discuss the evidence as to his state of mind, his actions. ( and how these may have shown premeditation, intent, malice) IMO. Many of the jurors who have given interviews say they deliberated the facts in evidence. I have no reason to disbelieve them, and they appear to me to have done their best to deliberate as instructed. It appears you disagree and have found much fault with their verdict based on a few statements individual jurors have made.

The point is that, as we agreed upon, with motive eliminated as a source for the proof of premeditation (and intent). Then proof of premeditation would have had to be sourced from other sources that the Courts recognize can provide inculpatory evidence.

In this case, a witness can not be that source.

In this case, a confession can not be that source.

In this case, a crime scene can not be that source.

In this case, a murder weapon can not be that source.

In this case, forensic evidence can not be that source.

In this case, the time of death can not be that source.

In this case, the place of death can not be that source.

In this case, how the murder took place can not be that source.

In this case, cause of death can not be that source.

In this case, motive (we both agree) can not be that source.

There are no other sources of inculpatory evidence that could supply evidence of premeditation and/or intent.

When all sources of inculpatory evidence cannot be the sources the jury used to reach a verdict requiring a finding of premeditation and intent (murder one) or intent alone (murder two), then of logical necessity, such verdicts have to be fallacious, and, thus, at a minimum, reversible.

(setting aside jeopardy attaching as argument)

JustMyOpinion

04-04-2007, 02:01 PM

The point is that, as we agreed upon, with motive eliminated as a source for the proof of premeditation (and intent). )

No, we do not agree. Based on remarks made by several individual jurors, I do not think they unanimously agreed on Scott's precise motivation(s) for murdering Laci & Conner, and, they were not required by law to find THE MOTIVE for murder. It is quite clear they DID unanimously deliberate & agree that evidence proved he did murder them, and, as I stated, there was plenty of evidence as to his state of mind, his actions which they could utilize to deliberate the issues of premediation, intent, malice. I am sorry I am not being clear enough about my opinion. I don't believe the issue of motive is the same as the issues of premeditation, intent, malice. They are separate. It is entirely possible the jurors deliberated guilt/innocence to a unanimous decision, and then went back over the evidence to determine to which degree. There's no EVIDENCE that this jury did not utilize inculpatory evidence to deliberate issues of premeditation, intent, malice, IMO.

Wudge

04-04-2007, 02:11 PM

No, we do not agree. Based on remarks made by several individual jurors, I do not think they unanimously agreed on Scott's precise motivation(s) for murdering Laci & Conner, and, they were not required by law to find THE MOTIVE for murder. It is quite clear they DID unanimously deliberate & agree that evidence proved he did murder them, and, as I stated, there was plenty of evidence as to his state of mind, his actions which they could utilize to deliberate the issues of premediation, intent, malice. I am sorry I am not being clear enough about my opinion. I don't believe the issue of motive is the same as the issues of premeditation, intent, malice. They are separate. It is entirely possible the jurors deliberated guilt/innocence to a unanimous decision, and then went back over the evidence to determine to which degree. There's no EVIDENCE that this jury did not utilize inculpatory evidence to deliberate issues of premeditation, intent, malice, IMO.

Correct. Motive is not required to be proven. However, when all the other sources of inculpatory evidence are dry, then motive would have to be the source that the jury used to source proof of premeditation and/or intent.

Since we agree the jury reached its verdict absent motive, then all sources of inculpatory evidence necessarily fail to support either premeditation or intent.

Beebee

04-04-2007, 02:20 PM

Correct. Motive is not required to be proven. However, when all the other sources of inculpatory evidence are dry, then motive would have to be the source that the jury used to source proof of premeditation and/or intent.

Since we agree the jury reached its verdict absent motive, then all sources of inculpatory evidence necessarily fail to support either premeditation or intent.

Your previous post laying it all out was awesome Wudge.

The verdict is illegal.

attorneywan2be

04-04-2007, 02:24 PM

The point is that, as we agreed upon, with motive eliminated as a source for the proof of premeditation (and intent). Then proof of premeditation would have had to be sourced from other sources that the Courts recognize can provide inculpatory evidence.

In this case, a witness can not be that source.

In this case, a confession can not be that source.

In this case, a crime scene can not be that source.

In this case, a murder weapon can not be that source.

In this case, forensic evidence can not be that source.

In this case, the time of death can not be that source.

In this case, the place of death can not be that source.

In this case, how the murder took place can not be that source.

In this case, cause of death can not be that source.

In this case, motive (we both agree) can not be that source.

There are no other sources of inculpatory evidence that could supply evidence of premeditation and/or intent.

When all sources of inculpatory evidence cannot be the sources the jury used to reach a verdict requiring a finding of premeditation and intent (murder one) or intent alone (murder two), then of logical necessity, such verdicts have to be fallacious, and, thus, at a minimum, reversible.

(setting aside jeopardy attaching as argument)

Great post Wudge...there is no way around it...the verdict will be reversed..!!

enlightenme

04-04-2007, 02:36 PM

No, we do not agree. Based on remarks made by several individual jurors, I do not think they unanimously agreed on Scott's precise motivation(s) for murdering Laci & Conner, and, they were not required by law to find THE MOTIVE for murder. It is quite clear they DID unanimously deliberate & agree that evidence proved he did murder them, and, as I stated, there was plenty of evidence as to his state of mind, his actions which they could utilize to deliberate the issues of premediation, intent, malice. I am sorry I am not being clear enough about my opinion. I don't believe the issue of motive is the same as the issues of premeditation, intent, malice. They are separate. It is entirely possible the jurors deliberated guilt/innocence to a unanimous decision, and then went back over the evidence to determine to which degree. There's no EVIDENCE that this jury did not utilize inculpatory evidence to deliberate issues of premeditation, intent, malice, IMO.

Yes, what about the defendant's own words, actions, and state of mind? I think buying the boat on the same day he told his lover that he lost his wife, looking up tides & currents in the bay, buying a 2 day fishing license (that he also told no one about), etc. are inculpatory evidence. That laid the foundation for premeditation.

Wudge

04-04-2007, 02:57 PM

I'd like to see Nice confess that none of the jurors had a clue - but I guess that's redundant, they've pretty much done that with their 'book' and TV appearances.

I have not read their book, for I have not yet heard they discussion evidence or deliberations in that book.

I will say that when that book came out at Christmas, it bothered me and that was what caused me to review case facts and post-trial statements once again.

That is when I realized that John Guinasso established on Larry King that he violated Scott's 5th Amendment right. It has also resulted in the current development of this issue regarding whether Greg Beratlis's statement proves the jury reached it's murder one verdict absent motive, and if so, the waterfall effect that would stem from that.

attorneywan2be

04-04-2007, 03:19 PM

Yes, what about the defendant's own words, actions, and state of mind. I think buying the boat on the same day he told his lover that he lost his wife, looking up tides & currents in the bay, buying a 2 day fishing license (that he also told no one about), etc. are inculpatory evidence. That laid the foundation for premeditation.

The questions are:

1-When did he think about buying a boat?

Note: the prosecution objected because they didn't want Brocchini to say that Scott did indeed talk to Ulrich about buying a boat over 3 months before Jan 4, 2003, ..that was way before he even knew Amber existed..Geragos was reading off Brocchini's report...

Mark Geragos: Okay. One of the people you talked to on January 4th specifically was Brian Ulrich?
Allen Brocchini: Yes.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Brian told you that Scott had been talking about a boat over three months before January 4th; is that correct?
Rick Distaso: Objection, your Honor. Hearsay.
Judge Delucchi: Well, again it goes to state of mind. The issue here is the fishing and why he went on Christmas. So the objection is overruled. Not offered for the truth. Offered to explain circumstantial evidence of his state of mind to explain the defendant's conduct.
Rick Distaso: Well, but it's not defendant's state of mind, talking to Brian Ulrich.
Judge Delucchi: He's asking what the defendant told him.
Mark Geragos: Right.
Rick Distaso: It's double hearsay then. Not admission of the party opponent.
Judge Delucchi: I think he's right.
Mark Geragos: You don't want to, you don't want to, you tell me, did you talk to Brian Ulrich?
Allen Brocchini: Can you show me the report you are looking at? Yes, I did talk to him.
Mark Geragos: Did you ask him whether where Scott had discussed a buying a boat?
Allen Brocchini: Let me review it real quick.
Mark Geragos: Bottom of the second paragraph, last sentence.
Allen Brocchini: Okay. I asked him.

2-What did he do after buying the boat?

I already posted extensively about it on another thread "evidence that points to innocence"

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8834240&postcount=246

accordn2me

04-04-2007, 03:25 PM

Wudge

04-04-2007, 03:32 PM

It bothered me too, Wudge, because it was a reminder of the Christmas that Scott killed Laci.

As to John Guinasso on Larry King - wouldn't he need to sign a statement or declaration stating what he said on the show was real, and not just for the benefit of the viewers?

Hi Sun,

I'll let you forward that thought to the D.A.s office, so they can have something (anything) to argue in their reply on this issue in Cliff Gardner's appeal motion for a new trial (or better).

In all honesty, John Guinasso positioning his "if/then" statement -- conditioning deductive logic and thereby allowing for a perfected conclusion -- just moments after he told Larry King that Geragos had him targeted in a 6th Amendment appeal issue is mind-boggling.

It surely was an "Oh No, Oh No, Oh God" moment for the prosecutors; the kind of thing that would cause a prosecutor to just bounce off of walls for days on end.

On Dr. Phil's show in March of this year, Guinasso's girlfriend Sharon said: "John has taken to coming home, closing his bedroom door and isolating himself."

(chuckle ... I have little doubt but that right after the Larry King show, someone [I wonder who] suggested he do that.)

Toggie

04-05-2007, 04:55 PM

Is that when he went on his computer and logged on to Court TV?

Jim:lol: Do you honestly believe he did that?

TuscanDreams

04-05-2007, 05:28 PM

Given that there is: no eye witness, no confession, no cause of death, no time of death, no place of death, no murder weapon, no crime scene and no probative forsensic evidence (beyond the bodies), then premeditation (and intent) could only have been proved though motive, because motive is the only remaining source from which evidentiary support for premeditation (and intent) could have been drawn.

Hence, if we agree (and we do) that the jury reached its decision absent motive, there is no valid inculpatory evidence source left that could have provided evidence to support a valid finding of either premeditation or intent.

Hi Wudge- I agree with you in part. There is no eye witness, no confession, no cause, place or time of death, no murder weapon and no forensics.

the jury reached their conclusion after viewing the evidence that was available and they convicted him on that.

Personally, I can understand how someone could feel that SP is innocent, with a lack of physical evidence.

Rachel Cory

04-05-2007, 07:20 PM

I agreed with your opinion that the jury did not deliberate and determine his motive. They did have sufficient evidence showing premeditation and intent, IMO.
This is my first post and question. What was the evidence that showed premeditation?

Anne2719

04-05-2007, 07:32 PM

This is my first post and question. What was the evidence that showed premeditation?
Welcome to the forum, Rachel Cory (that name brings back old memories).

Wudge

04-05-2007, 08:30 PM

This is my first post and question. What was the evidence that showed premeditation?

From #153, I contend premeditation was not proven as condition by Greg Beratlis's statement on Larry King live. If my logic is fool proof, and I believe it is, any alleged evidence of premeditation becomes a mute issue. For jeopardy attaches to reversals based insufficent evidence.

Wudge

04-05-2007, 08:36 PM

Hi Wudge- I agree with you in part. There is no eye witness, no confession, no cause, place or time of death, no murder weapon and no forensics.

the jury reached their conclusion after viewing the evidence that was available and they convicted him on that.

Personally, I can understand how someone could feel that SP is innocent, with a lack of physical evidence.

Tuscan, the available evidence to the jury outside of the eliminated souces I detailed could only be corroborative evidence. Corroborative evidence is not sufficient to prove premeditation and/or intent.

Rachel Cory

04-05-2007, 09:22 PM

Welcome to the forum, Rachel Cory (that name brings back old memories).

Thanks. As you can see, I'm still not over the cancellation. :eek:

Anne2719

04-05-2007, 10:11 PM

Thanks. As you can see, I'm still not over the cancellation. :eek:
I have Thanksgiving dinner almost every year with Cass Winthrop.

Wearing A Halo

04-05-2007, 10:19 PM

accordn2me

04-06-2007, 09:23 PM

The jurors said in their book that in order to follow the instructions given, they agreed that ISP premeditated the murder of Laci, that was clear. They could not say that, based on the instructions given, that ISP premeditated the murder of his son, therefore, they HAD to go with with 2nd degree. They never stated that they were confused.Logic is not my strong point. My logic professor told me, "if you think it's A, go with B...." He gave me a C in the class, in my opinion, because he is the only one who taught that class and I would have had to take it again with anything less. That said, this decision (the jury's) does not make sense 2me.:read:

Lili007

04-07-2007, 12:01 AM

Logic is not my strong point. My logic professor told me, "if you think it's A, go with B...." He gave me a C in the class, in my opinion, because he is the only one who taught that class and I would have had to take it again with anything less. That said, this decision (the jury's) does not make sense 2me.:read:

That's OK. But just because logic is not YOUR strong point, you can't extrapolate that to infer that the jury's decision was illogical. I accept that you've qualified that with "does not make sense 2me", however.

JMO

accordn2me

04-07-2007, 12:31 AM

That's OK. But just because logic is not YOUR strong point, you can't extrapolate that to infer that the jury's decision was illogical. I accept that you've qualified that with "does not make sense 2me", however.

JMO
Are you a detective?

Lili007

04-07-2007, 01:44 AM

Are you a detective?

Only on these boards. LOL

I just think logic takes center court in most things... If it doesn't make sense, it probably didn't happen. If it does, it probably did. I know that's not precise, but it's logical.

Happy Easter to you!

One2Snoop

04-07-2007, 02:38 AM

If you remember there was a message from Ron asking her to get whipped cream and there is a convienent store at the end of the block. I see no reason that Laci would have started her vehicle to go this close to a store.

IIRC, There's no convenience store at the end of the block that I'm aware of. Laci would definitely need to use her car. IMO (This is from my own personal observation.)

cookiewench

04-07-2007, 02:46 AM

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

Laci ask Scott to fill a bucket of water for her because she was going to walk McKenzie and wanted to mop the floor before leaving.

They kiss each other and Scott gets in his truck to leave and Laci mops and out the door she is.

This would not have taken Laci, but a minute or two. There was not that much floor for her to mop.

He then takes off his clothes and puts them in the washer and washes them. This is not out of charachter for Scott concerning the fact that this is what he did on a daily basis because they stunk from being at work and because Laci did not want his clothes washed with hers.

Now I have never known anyone getting home and immediately panic when they see their spouse is not there. In fact, I would find it more alarming for one to be suspicious of this behavior.

Scott knows Laci and he knows more than anyone how she has been feeling. There could have been a many of times that Laci ran out to get something and not leave a note because she would be right back.
If you remember there was a message from Ron asking her to get whipped cream and there is a convienent store at the end of the block. I see no reason that Laci would have started her vehicle to go this close to a store.

Theories are interesting, but not when they clash with the known, established facts:

Scott said that Laci was mopping the floor when he left (he also said another time that she was curling her hair).

Now, you either believe Scott, or you believe your own theory. He says she was mopping the floor.

And I've mopped plenty of floors in my life, but never in one minute or two, especially not while pregnant.

She had also paid someone to mop that floor the day before that. I also don't know anyone who pays to have their floor mopped, just so they can do it themselves the next day.

Also, I have never once heard that Scott's clothes would "stink" from work, or that he washed his own clothes. I do not believe that his clothes would "stink" from driving around selling fertilizer.

And you've never known anyone to panic when a PREGNANT person hasn't answered the phone all day, hasn't returned a call all day, and their car is in the driveway and the house is dark when they get in?

I respectfully request that you provide a link showing that there is a convenience store at the end of the block. I have never heard this stated, and I have seen many photos of the neighborhood, but never any stores.

It doesn't make sense. The message from Ron about whipped cream was an UNHEARD message. It had not been listened to before, by anyone but Scott.

And why the heck would you run out to the store, if you'd have to drive right by it on your way out?

cookiewench

04-07-2007, 02:47 AM

IIRC, There's no convenience store at the end of the block that I'm aware of. Laci would definitely need to use her car. IMO (This is from my own personal observation.)

And if there was, they'd have to drive right by it on their way out, so why waste time walking to it first?

One2Snoop

04-07-2007, 02:49 AM

I respectfully request that you provide a link showing that there is a convenience store at the end of the block. I have never heard this stated, and I have seen many photos of the neighborhood, but never any stores.

You're correct, there isn't one. See my post above yours.

One2Snoop

04-07-2007, 02:51 AM

And if there was, they'd have to drive right by it on their way out, so why waste time walking to it first?

I certainly wouldn't waste my time walking, especially being almost 8 months pregnant. JMO

One2Snoop

04-07-2007, 03:38 AM

Scott's income $6,400.00- a mo. Not including Laci's

Is this net income - after taxes were taken out?

Food bill- $600.00 a mo. - Its possible but not probable

Utilities- $150.00 a mo. - Impossible for California

Cell phone bill- $50.00 a mo. - Its possible but not probable

I don't see anything for:

Car insurance,
Gas for the car,
Homeowners Insurance,
Extra post office boxes,
Extra cell phone,
$$ for dating/affairs

Anne2719

04-07-2007, 03:57 AM

Anne2719

04-07-2007, 04:00 AM

cookiewench,
Drive: 0.8 mi (about 3 mins)

1. Head south on Covena Ave toward Haddon Ave 0.2 mi
1 min

2. Turn left at Miller Ave 0.5 mi
3 mins

There is a mini mart gas station. I am assuming "mini mart" carries small food items.
So it's a reasonable assumption that she would walk 1.6 miles to the mini-mart and back when she has a car sitting in the driveway?

Anne2719

04-07-2007, 04:20 AM

Somehow I can't imagine Scott bringing home girlfriends to a $400/month apartment. Or having a roommate.

And why is Scott's food bill $200 if it had been $600 when there were two of them? Would he be eating 50% less than when he was married? Assuming he and Laci ate equal amounts, which they probably didn't. He was significantly larger than she was, so he probably ate more. $50 a week for food? Maybe, if he has a garden and a goat and eats at Mom's 4 nights a week and packs peanut-butter sandwiches for lunch every day.

Anne2719

04-07-2007, 04:23 AM

Also, travel reimbursements are, by definition, reimbursements for monies he has spent out of pocket. It's not income.

enlightenme

04-07-2007, 07:31 AM

enlightenme

04-07-2007, 08:16 AM

So it's a reasonable assumption that she would walk 1.6 miles to the mini-mart and back when she has a car sitting in the driveway?

1.6 miles is hardly at the end of her block either.

There were so many errors and wild speculation in Dalton's book that I wouldn't use it as a reference for anything in this case. IMO

Lili007

04-07-2007, 08:49 AM

So it's a reasonable assumption that she would walk 1.6 miles to the mini-mart and back when she has a car sitting in the driveway?

Please. Not in the least. A heavily pregnant woman who struggles to put shoes on but is mopping the floor, getting ready to walk the dog before she spends the day baking for her Mom and Dad's dinner...

This woman was supposed to have been mopping the floor, watching Martha Stuart, while doing a "fun-flip" to her hair in the bathroom, getting dressed, getting ready to walk Mackenzie, bake Christmas dinner goodies and set the table for breakfast, ready for french toast.

And THEN, instead of driving her car to the mini-mart for whatever reason, she chose to walk 1.6-something miles. Yeah, right.

WRONG.

Sorry if this sounds disagreable - it's quite the opposite! I agree with what you say, I just added to it.

JMO

enlightenme

04-07-2007, 09:04 AM

Lili007

04-07-2007, 09:19 AM

"Scott said....." That's a problem right there! How can anyone take anything Scott said without collaboration or proof?

When you were pregnant, did you have any trouble filling up or moving a small bucket like the Petersons had? I sure didn't. I don't believe Laci ever mopped a floor that morning because I don't believe she was alive. I also don't believe the cat or dog was going to drink out of the bucket, esp. the cat.

I think Scott made up a lot of things as he went along because he was so adept at lying.

JMHO

I couldn't agree more.

Nothing Scott said or did made any sense, unless you consider his behaviour and movements from a guilty premise.

Nothing else makes any sense whatsoever.

SCOTT had the affair.
SCOTT bought the boat.
SCOTT sobbed to Amber about having "LOST" his wife.
SCOTT went "fishing" on the day when his pregnant wife was supposed to do so many things. But SCOTT preferred to go "fishing" 90 miles away instead. And - Laci's body and Conner's body washed up on the shore just where Scott was "fishing" that day, with the help of the currents.

That's the most despicable and cowardly thing I've ever heard of.

JMO

Wudge

04-07-2007, 09:31 AM

I couldn't agree more.

Nothing Scott said or did made any sense, unless you consider his behaviour and movements from a guilty premise.

Nothing else makes any sense whatsoever.

SCOTT had the affair.
SCOTT bought the boat.
SCOTT sobbed to Amber about having "LOST" his wife.
SCOTT went "fishing" on the day when his pregnant wife was supposed to do so many things. But SCOTT preferred to go "fishing" 90 miles away instead. And - Laci's body and Conner's body washed up on the shore just where Scott was "fishing" that day, with the help of the currents.

That's the most despicable and cowardly thing I've ever heard of.

JMO

If a juror revealed that to reach a guilty verdict they had to turn the process around by presuming Scott to be guilty, the verdict would be reversed with jeopardy attaching.

Wudge

04-07-2007, 09:40 AM

Only on these boards. LOL

I just think logic takes center court in most things... If it doesn't make sense, it probably didn't happen. If it does, it probably did. I know that's not precise, but it's logical.

Happy Easter to you!

In assessing circumstantial evidence, an inference proven to be true beyond a reasonable doubt takes center stage.

TuscanDreams

04-07-2007, 10:14 AM

Happy Easter to all. :seeya:

My guess is when Laci woke up that morning, she ate her cereal, while eating her cereal the curling iron was heating up.
When done eating her cereal, she curled her hair so that Scott could have the bathroom and when Scott got up she ate another bowl with him.
While Scott took shower and got ready, she put dishes in the dishwasher, wiped the counters, turned on the tv, and started Martha Stewart.
Scott gets done with his shower and getting dressed, he puts the umbrella in the truck, his pole, and tackle box.
While he is doing this, Laci gets on the pc and checks out the daisy umbrellas while it is a commercial. She then goes back in to see more of her show.
Scott then comes in to let her know he is ready to leave and she says hang on a second and I will walk you to the door.
While waiting is when the meringue is mentioned and this is how it was that Scott remembered the meringue. It was the main thing that was mentioned at this time.
A commercial comes, there is only a few minutes of the show left and Laci turns the tv off because there was maybe only a few minutes left.
Laci ask Scott to fill a bucket of water for her because she was going to walk McKenzie and wanted to mop the floor before leaving.
They kiss each other and Scott gets in his truck to leave and Laci mops and out the door she is.
This would not have taken Laci, but a minute or two. There was not that much floor for her to mop.
She did not chnage her clothes because she figured that as soon as she got home from walking McKenzie, she would go to the store.
Scott gets home, he sees the mop bucket of water. He empties it to keep the dog and cats from drinking out of it.
He then takes off his clothes and puts them in the washer and washes them. This is not out of charachter for Scott concerning the fact that this is what he did on a daily basis because they stunk from being at work and because Laci did not want his clothes washed with hers.
He puts a towel around him and grabs a glass of milk and a piece of pizza and then takes a shower.
When he gets out and Laci still has not yet come home is when he calls Sharon to see if she is there.

Thank you for taking the time to write this, there is much to discuss.

Laci was pretty tiny before she became pregnant- I was the same way. I didn't want to mop, walk, etc. because it was so hard.

One question I have, why did Scott want to place the umbrella in his truck?

Beebee

04-07-2007, 10:28 AM

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

There could have been more theories of someone else committting this crime.

I myself have given theorie for other people on different forums, but then I decided to give an account of the events on the morning of the 24th which is my theory of how it could have proven Scott's innocense.

All of which is my opinion.

My guess is when Laci woke up that morning, she ate her cereal, while eating her cereal the curling iron was heating up.
When done eating her cereal, she curled her hair so that Scott could have the bathroom and when Scott got up she ate another bowl with him.
While Scott took shower and got ready, she put dishes in the dishwasher, wiped the counters, turned on the tv, and started Martha Stewart.
Scott gets done with his shower and getting dressed, he puts the umbrella in the truck, his pole, and tackle box.
While he is doing this, Laci gets on the pc and checks out the daisy umbrellas while it is a commercial. She then goes back in to see more of her show.
Scott then comes in to let her know he is ready to leave and she says hang on a second and I will walk you to the door.
While waiting is when the meringue is mentioned and this is how it was that Scott remembered the meringue. It was the main thing that was mentioned at this time.
A commercial comes, there is only a few minutes of the show left and Laci turns the tv off because there was maybe only a few minutes left.
Laci ask Scott to fill a bucket of water for her because she was going to walk McKenzie and wanted to mop the floor before leaving.
They kiss each other and Scott gets in his truck to leave and Laci mops and out the door she is.
This would not have taken Laci, but a minute or two. There was not that much floor for her to mop.
She did not chnage her clothes because she figured that as soon as she got home from walking McKenzie, she would go to the store.
Scott gets home, he sees the mop bucket of water. He empties it to keep the dog and cats from drinking out of it.
He then takes off his clothes and puts them in the washer and washes them. This is not out of charachter for Scott concerning the fact that this is what he did on a daily basis because they stunk from being at work and because Laci did not want his clothes washed with hers.
He puts a towel around him and grabs a glass of milk and a piece of pizza and then takes a shower.
When he gets out and Laci still has not yet come home is when he calls Sharon to see if she is there.
You know the rest from there.

Now I have never known anyone getting home and immediately panic when they see their spouse is not there. In fact, I would find it more alarming for one to be suspicious of this behavior.

Scott knows Laci and he knows more than anyone how she has been feeling. There could have been a many of times that Laci ran out to get something and not leave a note because she would be right back.
If you remember there was a message from Ron asking her to get whipped cream and there is a convienent store at the end of the block. I see no reason that Laci would have started her vehicle to go this close to a store.
The washing of the clothes is a fact that mark mentioned in his opening statment.
The dent in the bed they claim was Laci, was most likely Scott.s butt sitting at the edge of the bed while taking off his socks.

Wow what a great post.
I think Laci changed into the tan pants real quick before she walked the dog.
By the way, they never found her tennis shoes in the house did they?

JustMyOpinion

04-07-2007, 10:40 AM

I don't understand your math. The food bill is $600, but if he were divorced it would go down to $200 for him? Is that because you're dividing it by three? Remember, that baby won't be eating any $200 worth of food anytime soon. And his house payment/rent would be $400? Are there rentals available for $400/month? That seems very low to me.

What was Laci's salary? Because her salary would be factored into the equation. Wasn't she a substitute school teacher? If he were to divorce her, would she be expected to find a higher-paying job and shoulder all the bills they had been sharing, because her husband had decided he didn't want the responsibilities of a wife and child?

Any divorced fathers here? Is this how it works?

CA is a community property state. These states generally regard as community property all property that has been acquired during the marriage ( other than a gift or inheritance). Spouses equally own community property ( 50/50). IE: Had Scott divorced Laci, equity in the house would have been split 50/50, other assets ( like the golf club membership) would likely be split 50/50, etc. Laci's jewelry may have been exempt from 50/50 split, because it was derived via inheritance.
Had they obtained a divorce and Laci been named the custodial parent of Conner, Scott would have been ordered to pay child support. Since Laci had only worked part time outside the home and her wage wasn't high, had quit her job in substitute teaching at the end of her pregnancy (and it was reported planned to stay home full time with Conner), Scott could very well have been ordered to pay a substantial amount of child/spousal support early-on, IMO. Since it was reported he had only met 20 percent of his sales quota with TradeCorp, I think it's uncertain how solid his future was with that company, but generally the court would calculate child support based on his past earnings, IMO.

Lili007

04-07-2007, 10:53 AM

Wow what a great post.
I think Laci changed into the tan pants real quick before she walked the dog.
......................snip

Why? To frame her husband for her soon-to-be-""DISAPPEARANCE""??

Sure she did. All pregnant women wait until their husband is just out the door to swiftly, "real quick" change from black pants into tan pants, just because.

Because she wanted to be found in the "right" colour pants when her body would eventually wash out where Scott went "fishing"..

Beebee

04-07-2007, 11:03 AM

Theories are interesting, but not when they clash with the known, established facts:

Scott said that Laci was mopping the floor when he left (he also said another time that she was curling her hair).

Now, you either believe Scott, or you believe your own theory. He says she was mopping the floor.

And I've mopped plenty of floors in my life, but never in one minute or two, especially not while pregnant.

She had also paid someone to mop that floor the day before that. I also don't know anyone who pays to have their floor mopped, just so they can do it themselves the next day.

Also, I have never once heard that Scott's clothes would "stink" from work, or that he washed his own clothes. I do not believe that his clothes would "stink" from driving around selling fertilizer.

And you've never known anyone to panic when a PREGNANT person hasn't answered the phone all day, hasn't returned a call all day, and their car is in the driveway and the house is dark when they get in?

I respectfully request that you provide a link showing that there is a convenience store at the end of the block. I have never heard this stated, and I have seen many photos of the neighborhood, but never any stores.

It doesn't make sense. The message from Ron about whipped cream was an UNHEARD message. It had not been listened to before, by anyone but Scott.

And why the heck would you run out to the store, if you'd have to drive right by it on your way out?

No, Scott said Laci was mopping the floor. That's why he moved the bucket for her close to the front door. It was already full. The mopping the floor process had started.
(Why do you think there was a mop and bucket outside the Peterson home when police arrived?)
The hair flip was at a different point in time. Something else she did that morning.
Back to the mopping. Yes, she could easily finish mopping and change in ten minutes or so.... the best time to get the dog out of the house if after mopping so he doesnt walk on the wet floor.
Why mop? Well first of all the area isn't that big, so we are not talking a huge job here. Second, if I had a large long haired dog inside I would probably mop daily, especially before baking. How do we know Mac hadn't tracked some dirt in on his paws? We don't. There could be a million reasons.
Nothing strange about this at all. More important question, why would Scott lie and say she was mopping if she wasn't? You should already know zero forensics on the mop. Just regular soap and dirt debris.

Scott worked with chemicals and fertilizers. With no garage I could see his habit being to put his clothes into the washer. What do you think he should have done with his damp clothes?

Putting them in the washer seems normal to me.

I also think Scott's actions when he got home were normal in terms of Laci. He didn't stall anything. He called Sharon first. Had he wanted to stall, he could have slowly started calling friends, or how about this..... don't do the deed when you have dinner plans with the in-laws??

http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/id53.html

IM MY OPINION

Beebee

04-07-2007, 11:20 AM

Please. Not in the least. A heavily pregnant woman who struggles to put shoes on but is mopping the floor, getting ready to walk the dog before she spends the day baking for her Mom and Dad's dinner...

This woman was supposed to have been mopping the floor, watching Martha Stuart, while doing a "fun-flip" to her hair in the bathroom, getting dressed, getting ready to walk Mackenzie, bake Christmas dinner goodies and set the table for breakfast, ready for french toast.

And THEN, instead of driving her car to the mini-mart for whatever reason, she chose to walk 1.6-something miles. Yeah, right.

JMO

I don't know where the driving to the store is coming from :confused:

But as for the other activities.... what is the big deal? I've been pregnant... even "heavily" LOL pregnant, and I was very active. Pregnancy doesn't turn everybody into a beached whale. In fact just the opposite. I know many women who were entirely fit through pregnancy and even worked the entire time until labor!

Laci seemed like the type to stay fit and active to me.

IN MY OPINION

Beebee

04-07-2007, 11:21 AM

Beebee

04-07-2007, 11:24 AM

Why? To frame her husband for her soon-to-be-""DISAPPEARANCE""??

Sure she did. All pregnant women wait until their husband is just out the door to swiftly, "real quick" change from black pants into tan pants, just because.

Because she wanted to be found in the "right" colour pants when her body would eventually wash out where Scott went "fishing"..

Your sarcasm is so thick that your post isn't making any sense to me. Want to try again?

Lili007

04-07-2007, 11:31 AM

Your sarcasm is so thick that your post isn't making any sense to me. Want to try again?

Sorry.

Certainly.

I don't think any heavily pregnant woman would change "real quick" unless she had a very good reason to do so.

And if she did, 'change real quick' into tan pants from the black pants that Scott said he last saw her in, why do we give any credence to "witnesses" who saw a woman in BLACK pants and white shirt walking a retriever and swore it was Laci?

It's one or the other, don't you think?

Lili007

04-07-2007, 11:33 AM

So why was the bucket and wet mop there?

Because that's where Scott put them? After washing up.

Lili007

04-07-2007, 11:57 AM

If a juror revealed that to reach a guilty verdict they had to turn the process around by presuming Scott to be guilty, the verdict would be reversed with jeopardy attaching.

The jury has already given its verdict, judge. You want to rubbish them? Go for it. You've been doing that since before they even reached a verdict.

But the fact remains that they reached a verdict without the benefit of your wudge experience and it's as good as gold. If you disagree, take on the judicial system, not the victims.

I suggest that you might take your own counsel and move on. There are other cases to try, other fish to fry. NEXT is the best word I can think of for describing your input into this. And I'm being kind.

JMO

Wudge

04-07-2007, 12:16 PM

The jury has already given its verdict, judge. You want to rubbish them? Go for it. You've been doing that since before they even reached a verdict.

But the fact remains that they reached a verdict without the benefit of your wudge experience and it's as good as gold. If you disagree, take on the judicial system, not the victims.

I suggest that you might take your own counsel and move on. There are other cases to try, other fish to fry. NEXT is the best word I can think of for describing your input into this. And I'm being kind.

JMO

Lil, I said: If a juror.............................

Now, your reply to me is based on the jury reversing the process. Do you have a link or have you read the jury or any juror had done that?

[Produce proof that they did, then I will give you the world's most fertile ground to accuse me of rubbishing the jurors. I assure you, it won't then be a false accusation as regards my post here.]

Finally, I have no idea why you think my post "takes on the victims". If you wish to, please explain.

Lili007

04-07-2007, 12:22 PM

Lil, I said: If a juror.............................

Now, your reply to me is based on the jury reversing the process. Do you have a link or have you read the jury or any juror had done that?

[Produce proof that they did, then I will give you the world's most fertile ground to accuse me of rubbishing the jurors. I assure you, it won't then be a false accusation.]

Finally, I have no idea why you think my post "takes on the victims". If you wish to, please explain.

Tomorrow.

In my court.

Wudge

04-07-2007, 12:28 PM

Tomorrow.

In my court.

Thank you. Please maintain context to my post here.

JustMyOpinion

04-07-2007, 12:32 PM

So why was the bucket and wet mop there?

Because Scott put them there. IMO

Wudge

04-07-2007, 12:59 PM

Because Scott put them there. IMO

Good grief. That would mean the best thing that Scott could come up with for what Laci was doing when he left was mopping the floor.

I mean........................................

cookiewench

04-07-2007, 01:33 PM

Good grief. That would mean the best thing that Scott could come up with for what Laci was doing when he left was mopping the floor.

I mean........................................

Do you think he was "really smart"?

I don't. He wasn't smart enough not to tell lies that were unneccesary and that he'd be busted on right away.

Then again - Scott may have mopped the floor himself, so he had no other choice but to use that story.

If he had attacked and strangled her in the kitchen, he'd mop it.

After all - the dna from blood or saliva (or numerous hairs) from Laci would be suspicious if found on that floor - but after the mop was rinsed & squeezed, downright impossible to find, or to use as evidence if found.

enlightenme

04-07-2007, 01:33 PM

Good grief. That would mean the best thing that Scott could come up with for what Laci was doing when he left was mopping the floor.

I mean........................................

I think she means that Scott had a bit of cleaning up to do, not to explain what Laci was doing. LE found them emptied out by the door outside and then Scott came up with why they were there....because LACI was mopping.

cookiewench

04-07-2007, 01:36 PM

And in case you're going to say that the mop & bucket were luminol tested with no results:

I know that luminol will show where blood was cleaned up from a solid surface, but not that it would show up when a tiny drop was mixed 100,000 to 1 with water and still in a liquid state.

Wudge

04-07-2007, 01:39 PM

Do you think he was "really smart"?

I don't. He wasn't smart enough not to tell lies that were unneccesary and that he'd be busted on right away.

Then again - Scott may have mopped the floor himself, so he had no other choice but to use that story.

If he had attacked and strangled her in the kitchen, he'd mop it.

After all - the dna from blood or saliva (or numerous hairs) from Laci would be suspicious if found on that floor - but after the mop was rinsed & squeezed, downright impossible to find, or to use as evidence if found.

How much hard evidence was produced at trial?

JustMyOpinion

04-07-2007, 01:58 PM

Good grief. That would mean the best thing that Scott could come up with for what Laci was doing when he left was mopping the floor.

I mean........................................

Barefoot, watching Martha Steward, mopping the floor & talking about walking the dog. (IIRC) I don't think it was the "best thing" Scott could come up with, but I do think it is possible he mopped the floor at some point. ( perhaps worried about potential " evidence " on floor since I think he dragged her body out of the house) I think painting her as "barefoot & pregnant" suited Scott just fine!
Scott's story doesn't make sense to me.
I don't think Laci mopped the floor while white shirt & black pants, but took off jewelry & changed her clothing to tan pants to walk the dog outside in the park. ( dog walking usually results in sweat/dirt/mud)
I don't think Laci would mop the floor the morning of the 24th ( since the maid had mopped the previous day, since she was preparing to shop, cook/bake, and since her company was not due until Xmas morning)
I don't think common daily chores ( like dog walking) are something one typically announces ahead of time and filling & lifting a bucket is easy compared to dog-walking, IMO. Laci carried groceries in from the car, and I heard no medical testimony that she had been instructed not to lift. ( she had been advised to stop walking the dog, or to walk later in the day)

attorneywan2be

04-07-2007, 02:03 PM

Because that's where Scott put them? After washing up.

In your opinion..

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?t=281098

enlightenme

04-07-2007, 02:14 PM

Barefoot, watching Martha Steward, mopping the floor & talking about walking the dog. (IIRC) I don't think it was the "best thing" Scott could come up with, but I do think it is possible he mopped the floor at some point. ( perhaps worried about potential " evidence " on floor since I think he dragged her body out of the house) I think painting her as "barefoot & pregnant" suited Scott just fine!
Scott's story doesn't make sense to me.
I don't think Laci mopped the floor while white shirt & black pants, but took off jewelry & changed her clothing to tan pants to walk the dog outside in the park. ( dog walking usually results in sweat/dirt/mud)
I don't think Laci would mop the floor the morning of the 24th ( since the maid had mopped the previous day, since she was preparing to shop, cook/bake, and since her company was not due until Xmas morning)
I don't think common daily chores ( like dog walking) are something one typically announces ahead of time and filling & lifting a bucket is easy compared to dog-walking, IMO. Laci carried groceries in from the car, and I heard no medical testimony that she had been instructed not to lift. ( she had been advised to stop walking the dog, or to walk later in the day)

I'm as short as Laci and was as big as a whale with both pregnancies, or at least it FELT like it. I gained about 30 lbs. each time.

Anyway, I never had any problem lifting a bucket the size that the Petersons had to mop any floor in the house. :shrug:

One2Snoop

04-07-2007, 03:10 PM

Toggie

04-07-2007, 03:31 PM

accordn2me

04-07-2007, 03:34 PM

I can't believe I'm posting this, but fair is fair.

I have never seen Wudge attack Laci's family, which makes him unique among Scott's supporters. I don't agree with Wudge, and I know he has me on ignore, but that won't stop me from saying what is right.

I have seen some downright disgusting things in this case, tied for the lowest of the low are the "Bounty (improved posting privileges) for dirt on Sharon Rocha" and other relatives that was posted on a Scott supporter site and the letter to Greta from Ana Costa. Wudge does seem to have no use for law enforcement - I would assume his 911 calls are routed directly to a criminal defense attorney instead of the police - but I can honestly say that if he has attacked Sharon or other family members on Laci's side I'm unaware of it.

I'm going to look for the Sun to rise in the West tomorrow morning.This was one of the first posts I read this morning and I just can't let it go without a comment. First, I'm touched that Adnoid's post is supportive of Wudge. Adnoid, you are going to miss the sunrise on Easter Sunday if you don't turn around! :rose:

Now to address the horrifying part of Adnoid's post highlighted in orange: For someone to attack Sharon Rocha like that is absolutely....I can't even find the words to adequately express....disgusting, mean, cruel, abhorrent, vile! It's unforgivable. It's sick, it's sad, it's desperate.:(

Rachel Cory

04-07-2007, 03:40 PM

I have Thanksgiving dinner almost every year with Cass Winthrop.
Off topic, but I'd sure like a piece of that turkey.

Rachel Cory

04-07-2007, 03:42 PM

Logic is not my strong point. My logic professor told me, "if you think it's A, go with B...." He gave me a C in the class, in my opinion, because he is the only one who taught that class and I would have had to take it again with anything less. That said, this decision (the jury's) does not make sense 2me.:read:
Thank you, a2m. You reason a lot more efficiently than you think you do.

Wudge

04-07-2007, 03:52 PM

Accordn2me, I received a PM saying that you wanted me to adjust ignore because, either generically or in regards to this case, you wanted me to answer a question regarding circumstantial evidence.

Rachel Cory

04-07-2007, 04:00 PM

My memory isn't what is used to be but IIRC didn't the maid mop the floor on the 23rd? And if thats the case would this be the reason the mop and bucket were out? I guess the mop and bucket thing has not been high on my priority list in the scheme of things. JMO. I'll see if I can find that statement unless someone else has it handy. TIA.
She sure did, but there were dirty rags in the bucket. Someone put those rags in the washer, and I believe it was Laci. She would have company in the next day, Christmas Day, to eat creme marinated French toast. Pet hair would make her mop. I believe Scott did exactly what he said he did.

accordn2me

04-07-2007, 04:05 PM

Accordn2me, I received a PM saying that you wanted me to adjust ignore because, either generically or in regards to this case, you wanted me to answer a question regarding circumstantial evidence.
Thank you, Wudge. I'll try to mind my four-letter words and IMOs.

Was the pliers with the hair that was found in Scott's boat CE?

Is there any CE that you can think of that would be good enough for you personally to find someone guilty of first degree murder?

May I PM you?

accordn2me

04-07-2007, 04:38 PM

It's vile, low and unforgivable. The first time I saw it my jaw fell to the floor.

And the person that did it has never expressed any remorse for the disgusting comments about people that lost a daughter and a sister. Which is why I have real trouble using that person as a credible source on anything.

At least she doesn't post here so I can't get in trouble for attacking another member, although truth is (in the US at least) an absolute defense to a charge of defamation.
To attack any of Laci's family, especially her mother, could not possibly help past, present, or future Scott Peterson in anyway! Scott, being the nice, polite....whatever he is....surely would not encourage or condone such despicable behavior. Indeed, I would be surprised if Scott was not ashamed of supporters of his acting like that.

I can't imagine how bad the letter to Greta was, or its contents if it's on the same "lowest of the low" list with behavior such as this.:mad:

Wudge

04-07-2007, 04:52 PM

Thank you, Wudge. I'll try to mind my four-letter words and IMOs.

Was the pliers with the hair that was found in Scott's boat CE?

Is there any CE that you can think of that would be good enough for you personally to find someone guilty of first degree murder?

May I PM you?

That's an excellent question. The odds of it being Laci's hair was 112-1 against it being her hair. Notwithstanding the force of that truth, in his closing argument, Distaso represented it to be Laci's hair without question (my recall).

Because there was no dog evidence (bowser nose) or other evidence that placed Laci in the back of Scott's truck or in the toolbox or under the umbrellas or on the boat cover or in the boat, Distaso obviously felt he needed something to argue as transport evidence. A hair with 112-1 odds was was all he had.

I do not think most prosecutors would have used the hair in their closing argument; it could easily have been taken as an insult to the juror's intelligence. In other cases that could have caused many a juror to tune out an entire argument. Obviously, Distaso felt this jury would not hold it against him (good perception there).

I will make two points about the hair. First, the hair could not be inculpatory evidence of premeditation, deliberation or intent.

Second, no matter what evidentiary element Distaso might have hoped the hair could prove, a "reasonable" juror could not say that 112-1 odds (in a pre-trial hearing, Distaso accepted 112-1 without argument), the hair was proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be Laci's hair.

For all intents and purposes, the hair was not inculpatory evidence. Upon receipt of Scott Peterson's appeal, if the D.A.'s office were to claim the hair represents inculpatory evidence, Appellate Jurists would ignore that claim if not admonish the D.A. for claiming such.

Undoubtedly, the D.A. would prefer being ignored versus being admonished for an absurdity put forth as reasonable from any alleged viewpoint that could be considered most favorable to the State. For appellate courts do not enjoy being fed absurdities or well suffer fools on either side.

ETA: I will respond on "any case" when I return in an hour and a half or so.

Anne2719

04-07-2007, 05:02 PM

Can someone point me towards the transcripts with the 112-1 info on the hair?

accordn2me

04-07-2007, 05:11 PM

Can someone point me towards the transcripts with the 112-1 info on the hair?
Can someone help me with those "odds?"

2me...that sounds like pretty good odds that the hair was Laci's. Especially if you consider that the pliers were Scott's. Was that fact taken into consideration when the FBI? figured those odds?

accordn2me

04-07-2007, 05:29 PM

You don't have to imagine - just read down the page. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139272,00.html)

The person that wrote that letter is/was a respected (and high-karma) poster at more than one Scott support site.
That is terrible! For anyone to lash out at the victim's mother like that...:no:

And for a website moderator to encourage people to do it makes me sick! :flamemad:

I read bits and pieces of Sharon's book the other night. It was heartbreaking when she was writing about how many times she has gone over in her head about how Laci's last moments might have been. I don't remember seeing in the book how Conner's last moments might have been, but I'm sure she's played that tape many times as well. I read a doctor's opinion of what would be happening to the baby at different intervals of time. Sharon has every right to hate Scott. However, I didn't pick that up from what little I read. She has an overwhelming air of tragic sadness about her, and a mother's wish to make the world a better place by helping prevent other senseless deaths.

Results

04-07-2007, 06:03 PM

I don't know if SP is guilty or not but IMO there was not enough evidence to convict him and there is no evidence to release him. He can't be proven innocent my DNA. I was very surprised with the verdict and how fast it did come back when each juror that was replaced they had to start over. I couldn't imagine them being able to do that. I'm not expert on this case but I have to say that why not make sure the burglars were eliminated of committing this crime of killing Lacy? It would have been a stronger case for the prosecution or would that not have been allowed into evidence that they were cleared? I'm mainly going to read because I'm learning from both sides of the debate. If anyone can answer the question about the burglars I would appreciate it. Thanks. JMHO

Results

04-07-2007, 06:22 PM

Sassie,

I haven't read her book. Does her book say that she feels sad IF Scott is innocent?

Wudge

04-07-2007, 06:26 PM

SNIP

Is there any CE that you can think of that would be good enough for you personally to find someone guilty of first degree murder?

SNIP

I've said elsewhere that when sufficient inculpatory evidence is presented during a trial, I have no problem in coming down on the "guilty" side. For example (regarding cases you might be familiar with) unlike the six women jurors who felt sorry for Eric Menendez in his first trial (hung jury, six women vs six men), I would have found both Eric and Lyle to be “guilty”. Moreover, I would have found David Westerfield, Ray Carruth, and Fred Neulander to be “guilty” as well. Additionally, unlike the jury in the shotgun killing Gus Cristofi, I would have found Jayson Williams to be “guilty” too.

Wudge

04-07-2007, 06:40 PM

Can someone point me towards the transcripts with the 112-1 info on the hair?

3 HONORABLE ALFRED A. DELUCCHI, JUDGE
4
5 (FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN CHAMBERS)
6
7 THE COURT: Okay. This is the case of People
8 versus Scott Peterson. Record should reflect that these
9 proceedings are taking place in chambers at the request of
10 Mr. Geragos.
11 Mr. Geragos.
12 MR. GERAGOS: Thank you, judge. The ruling by
13 Judge Girolami, which this court asked, and I agreed to
14 stipulate was binding upon this court, was that all that the
15 expert could refer to in rendering an opinion on the
16 Mitochondrial DNA was that one in 112, I believe -- and I
17 think I won the bet with the other Mr. Harris who thought it
18 was one in 110. I went back and checked.
19 MR. DAVID HARRIS: I didn't bother to check.
20 MR. DISTASO: We are going to take his one in 112.

In his closing argument Distaso tells the jury: "There's really no dispute that Laci Peterson's hair was found in those pliers."

cookiewench

04-07-2007, 07:01 PM

Anne2719

04-07-2007, 07:23 PM

3 HONORABLE ALFRED A. DELUCCHI, JUDGE
4
5 (FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN CHAMBERS)
6
7 THE COURT: Okay. This is the case of People
8 versus Scott Peterson. Record should reflect that these
9 proceedings are taking place in chambers at the request of
10 Mr. Geragos.
11 Mr. Geragos.
12 MR. GERAGOS: Thank you, judge. The ruling by
13 Judge Girolami, which this court asked, and I agreed to
14 stipulate was binding upon this court, was that all that the
15 expert could refer to in rendering an opinion on the
16 Mitochondrial DNA was that one in 112, I believe -- and I
17 think I won the bet with the other Mr. Harris who thought it
18 was one in 110. I went back and checked.
19 MR. DAVID HARRIS: I didn't bother to check.
20 MR. DISTASO: We are going to take his one in 112.

In his closing argument Distaso tells the jury: "There's really no dispute that Laci Peterson's hair was found in those pliers."
Thanks, Wudge. I'm still confused, though. Is there other testimony about this? Are they saying that one in 112 people in the world would match this hair, and Laci was one who did? Because that's very different from saying it's a 112-to-1 chance it was her hair, I think.

Wudge

04-07-2007, 07:29 PM

I think we should elaborate on this a little more.

The 121 - 1 with hair is not the same as saying that there's a 121 - 1 chance that a (say) footprint matched a foot.

With DNA, that means that, out of all the billions of people in the world, there are only 121 who could conceivably be the owner of that hair.

With DNA, I'd call that a mighty close match.

Close enough that (considering where it was found), I'd be willing to bet my very life that it was hers.

Cookie, not only do we have the 112-1 accepted by Distaso without argument, but remember, too, that this is the infamous multiplying hair. A hair that magically become two hairs after the chain of custody process was violated by two Detectives. Even worse, those two Detectives were both impeached on the witness stand.

Detective Brocchini was impeached for excising from his notes that Laci had been at the warehouse. He was also impeached when he lied to the jury by adding "duct tape" in his testimony to what a roommate of Scott's had actually said.

Detective Hendee was impeached when he knowingly and purposefully misrepresented to the jury that the water pitcher was the mold for Scott's anchor. He absolutely knew that to be untrue, as did David Harris who conspired with him to perpetrate a fraud upon the Court.

Net, the hair was less than worthless as evidence to the prosecution. After all that had gone on with the hair, any reasonable juror should have held it against Distaso that he was brazen enough to represent the hair to be Laci's hair without (really no dispute) dispute.

accordn2me

04-07-2007, 07:33 PM

I've said elsewhere that when sufficient inculpatory evidence is presented during a trial, I have no problem in coming down on the "guilty" side. For example (regarding cases you might be familiar with) unlike the six women jurors who felt sorry for Eric Menendez in his first trial (hung jury, six women vs six men), I would have found both Eric and Lyle to be “guilty”. Moreover, I would have found David Westerfield, Ray Carruth, and Fred Neulander to be “guilty” as well. Additionally, unlike the jury in the shotgun killing Gus Cristofi, I would have found Jayson Williams to be “guilty” too.Sufficient inculpatory evidence? :shrug:

I'm familiar with the Menendez brothers who killed their parents. I'm with you on guilty. However, I do believe abuse, especially sexual/physical abuse is grounds for justifiable homicide. IMO, sitting on the couch watching TV with your wife, even porn, does not constitute sexual/physical abuse of the children. Weren't they, and the others you mentioned, found guilty, except maybe for that last one? I know in the Menendez brothers' case, it was not a case of "who did it." That was stipulated, right? The issue there was...justifiable homocide vs. murder one, IIRC.

This is probably not the place for me to ask you about two others, which is why I asked permission to PM you. However, I'm curious how you would call Darlie Routier, and Cynthia Sommers (not sure how to spell CS last name)? I think the glaring difference is...defendants who maintain innocence vs. those who we know did it but want a free pass for whatever their excuse is (e.g. retarded, impaired - mentally or physically (drugs/alcohol), age, abuse - physical/sexual, emotional).

Wudge

04-07-2007, 07:36 PM

Thanks, Wudge. I'm still confused, though. Is there other testimony about this? Are they saying that one in 112 people in the world would match this hair, and Laci was one who did? Because that's very different from saying it's a 112-to-1 chance it was her hair, I think.

Here is the entire in Chambers transcript as regards the hair. I cut it off before to save space. It does not get better for Distaso.

3 HONORABLE ALFRED A. DELUCCHI, JUDGE
4
5 (FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN CHAMBERS)
6
7 THE COURT: Okay. This is the case of People
8 versus Scott Peterson. Record should reflect that these
9 proceedings are taking place in chambers at the request of
10 Mr. Geragos.
11 Mr. Geragos.
12 MR. GERAGOS: Thank you, judge. The ruling by
13 Judge Girolami, which this court asked, and I agreed to
14 stipulate was binding upon this court, was that all that the
15 expert could refer to in rendering an opinion on the
16 Mitochondrial DNA was that one in 112, I believe -- and I
17 think I won the bet with the other Mr. Harris who thought it
18 was one in 110. I went back and checked.
19 MR. DAVID HARRIS: I didn't bother to check.
20 MR. DISTASO: We are going to take his one in 112.
21 MR. GERAGOS: That on the Caucasian database of
22 the FBI pool, and he specifically ruled you cannot say.
23 THE COURT: That it matched?
24 MR. GERAGOS: Right. Because it does -- it is not
25 a match. And so Mr. Distaso in his opening was saying that
26 he was referring both to the microscopic analysis, which I

8524
1 understand if I know what he's referring to is Rod Oswald's
2 comparison, where he could not exclude it, and that was
3 consistent with Laci Peterson's hair. And with the
4 Mitochondrial DNA saying it was a match, it's clearly not a
5 match. Number one, the judge ruled it's not a match, and
6 said the most you could say is one out of 112. I believe
7 that that should be corrected for the record.
8 THE COURT: Yes, I think so. First of all, it's
9 true that I asked Mr. Geragos and the District Attorney if
10 they were going to be bound by Judge Girolami's rulings. I
11 was not aware of that ruling, obviously, that that's what he
12 said. So I have no way of knowing that. But I accept your
13 representation.
14 MR. GERAGOS: I'd be happy to supply you with the
15 nine volumes of scintillating testimony on Mitochondrial DNA.
16 THE COURT: I got them right over there.
17 MR. GERAGOS: In any event, I'll ask you to clean
18 that up.
19 MR. DISTASO: I can fix it.
20 THE COURT: Go back --
21 MR. DISTASO: Just go back and say how the experts
22 are going to explain. They are going to take the statistics,
23 you know. I mean they don't --
24 MR. GERAGOS: I think that the Court.
25 THE COURT: Wait, wait. We have got three people.
26 MR. GERAGOS: Because I objected it was. And I

8525
1 was -- you didn't know.
2 THE COURT: I didn't know.
3 MR. GERAGOS: You wanted to slough me off. I
4 think that the Court should say, I have reconsidered
5 Mr. Geragos' objection, and I'm asking Mr. Distaso to clarify
6 what I think was a misstatement.
7 THE COURT: Okay.
8 MR. DAVID HARRIS: So we're really clear about
9 the terms Mr. Geragos was using, the only thing that they
10 could testify to is that's not exactly accurate. They can
11 explain they are not allowed to say that it's a match. In
12 fact, all of the experts said they would not call it a
13 match. In fact, they could distinguish it from Nuclear DNA.
14 So I don't want to, once we get to their testimony --
15 THE COURT: Don't want to split hairs or put too
16 fine a point on it.
17 MR. DAVID HARRIS: Correct.
18 MR. GERAGOS: But I think that the Court is the
19 one to introduce the subject, because I objected, and I don't
20 want to the look like I'm just being obstreperous.
21 THE COURT: I'll say that after discussion in
22 chambers, I'll sustain Mr. Geragos' objection. I'll ask the
23 District Attorney to clarify the issue as to this hair, and
24 then you can do so.
25 MR. DISTASO: Fine, judge.
26 THE COURT: Okay. And, Distaso, slow down. Try

8526
1 to slow down.