Ineffective Counsel.

[TuscanDreams]

Mark Geragos has been pointed to as one reason it was easy for Scott to be convicted. However, I don't know that cause rises to the legal aspect of ineffective counsel.

What do you think of the idea of ineffective counsel? Did Mark Geragos help convict Scott Peterson?

[Beebee]

I think Scott's lawyers will argue ineffective counsel, along with many other things. As for Geragos-- he admitted in court he did not prepare for a penaly phase, because he wasn't expecting one. When a lawyer admits they are not prepared, they are admitting ineffective counsel.
This is JMO- but I think Geragos said that on purpose, because he does believe Scott is innocent. I imagine blowing a case like Scott's haunts him. I think he very much wants to see a successful appeal, even if they drag him through the mud.

By the way, good morning :D I see I'm not the only early riser

[Miss Bootsie]

Mark Geragos has been pointed to as one reason it was easy for Scott to be convicted. However, I don't know that cause rises to the legal aspect of ineffective counsel.

What do you think of the idea of ineffective counsel? Did Mark Geragos help convict Scott Peterson?

No, Geragos did not help convict Scott.
Not a case of ineffective counsel. Geragos had no defense.

[Lili007]

No, Geragos did not help convict Scott.
Not a case of ineffective counsel. Geragos had no defense.

Oh... now I start to feel sorry for the guy...

The Donnie defense... the tan van... the "wait for it!" Friday teasers, the flops on Monday mornings when his baloon went pffffft, the sheer creativity he had to come up with to defend a two-bit philanderer-turned-murderer... that must have been taxing, in more ways than one. IMO, of course.

[Lili007]

I think Scott's lawyers will argue ineffective counsel, along with many other things. As for Geragos-- he admitted in court he did not prepare for a penaly phase, because he wasn't expecting one. When a lawyer admits they are not prepared, they are admitting ineffective counsel.
This is JMO- but I think Geragos said that on purpose, because he does believe Scott is innocent. I imagine blowing a case like Scott's haunts him. I think he very much wants to see a successful appeal, even if they drag him through the mud.

By the way, good morning :D I see I'm not the only early riser

May I remind you that Geragos was not present in court for Scott's sentencing. Once Scott was found guilty, Geragos washed his hands.

I don't really think it had anything to do with Scott's case - just that Geragos was moving on. Defendants to defend, cases to test, people to see and do lunch with.

JMO.

[enlightenme]

Ineffective counsel? Geragos? But, but, but, I thought he "turned every prosecution witness into a defense witness"?

I thought he supposedly impeached almost everyone?

Say it ain't so! I'd hate for Geragos' stellar reputation to be tarnished!!



Yes, I do saracism with my morning coffee daily, sorry! :biggrin:

[accordn2me]

The Trial -- Guilt Phase: 14 Witnesses for Defendant's Case in Chief

In Alphabetical Order by Surname

Bertalotto, Kevin / DA Investigator / Oct 20 & 21
Buehler, Jon / MPD / Oct 25
Cavallero, James Anthony / Britz Fertilizer / Oct 18
Cordova, Ricardo / Neighbor & Judge / Oct 21
Gebler, Steven Howard / CTL Engineer / Oct 18
Grogan, Craig / MPD / Oct 25
Hicks, Michael / MPD Tactical Patrol / Oct 25 & 26
Jensen, Carl / Private Investigator / Oct 18
Laffer, Martin G. / CPA / Oct 18 & 19
March, Charles Michael / Gyn-Infertility-Reproduction / Oct 21
Peterson, Jacqueline / Scott's Mother / Oct 25
Peterson, Lee / Scott's Dad / Oct 25
Phillips, Timothy / East Bay Reg Park / Oct 19, 20
Seitz, Ronald / Dog Handler / Oct 20

[One2Snoop]

Ineffective counsel? Geragos? But, but, but, I thought he "turned every prosecution witness into a defense witness"?

I thought he supposedly impeached almost everyone?

Say it ain't so! I'd hate for Geragos' stellar reputation to be tarnished!!



Yes, I do saracism with my morning coffee daily, sorry! :biggrin:

Well then - we have something in common. I like sarcasm with my coffee too. :D

Good Morning everyone! Its beautiful outside today! :seeya:

[Hey Paula]

Mark Geragos has been pointed to as one reason it was easy for Scott to be convicted. However, I don't know that cause rises to the legal aspect of ineffective counsel.

What do you think of the idea of ineffective counsel? Did Mark Geragos help convict Scott Peterson?

I believe, given the little he had to work with, that Mark Geragos did a great job cross-examining the Pros' witnesses, but failed miserably in his own minimal CIC. Personally, I feel he should have rested following the Pros' case.

Despite having Drs Wecht and Lee waiting at the hotel, to be called as Def witnesses, Geragos didn't call them. I suspect he knew they would not support Dr March's theory, after it fell flat on its face.

I have always felt MG intentionally defied Judge Delucchi's order to submit the penalty phase witness list. He quipped he wouldn't do so because he wasn't anticipating a guilty verdict. He was forewarned about the consequences to his client. Although MG nevertheless defied the order, Judge Delucchi afforded him the extra time to prepare and submit penalty phase witnesses, following the guilt phase and SP's conviction.

During a private interview with Larry King, following Scott's incarceration, Geragos said he wouldn't feel badly if an appeal was filed on the basis of ineffective counsel. I believe MG knew, all along, he was waging a losing battle. Prior to representing Scott Peterson he made a good case for the Pros, knowing Scott Peterson's own words, caught on tape and film, along with his inordinate behaviors and choices, compounded by the bodies of Laci and Conner washing ashore within a mile of each other in the same area he went trolling on the day Laci disappeared, would surely convict Scott Peterson.

IMO

[TuscanDreams]

My personal opinion of Mark Geragos is that he was a really bad choice for an attorney in a death penalty case. However, that doesn't rise to the legal spector for ineffective counsel, IMO.

[JustMyOpinion]

I believe, given the little he had to work with, that Mark Geragos did a great job cross-examining the Pros' witnesses, but failed miserably in his own minimal CIC. Personally, I feel he should have rested following the Pros' case.

Despite having Drs Wecht and Lee waiting at the hotel, to be called as Def witnesses, Geragos didn't call them. I suspect he knew they would not support Dr March's theory, after it fell flat on its face.

I have always felt MG intentionally defied Judge Delucchi's order to submit the penalty phase witness list. He quipped he wouldn't do so because he wasn't anticipating a guilty verdict. He was forewarned about the consequences to his client. Although MG nevertheless defied the order, Judge Delucchi afforded him the extra time to prepare and submit penalty phase witnesses, following the guilt phase and SP's conviction.

During a private interview with Larry King, following Scott's incarceration, Geragos said he wouldn't feel badly if an appeal was filed on the basis of ineffective counsel. I believe MG knew, all along, he was waging a losing battle. Prior to representing Scott Peterson he made a good case for the Pros, knowing Scott Peterson's own words, caught on tape and film, along with his inordinate behaviors and choices, compounded by the bodies of Laci and Conner washing ashore within a mile of each other in the same area he went trolling on the day Laci disappeared, would surely convict Scott Peterson.

IMO

I agree with you on all of this. I would like to add that prior to representing Scott, Geragos also said "this man is a sociopath if he did this crime". It has long been my opinion that Geragos has no doubt that Scott is a sociopath and knew a proper mitigation investigation would confirm this is so. Since Scott's "IMAGE" is something to protect for a possible future successful appeal/re-trial, Geragos wasn't interested in attempting to mitigate Scott's sentence with factual evidence about his serious personality disorder, IMO. And, once he was convicted, I have long believed his team felt the death sentence was the preferred outcome ( Scott safer on Death Row, free/automatic appeals all the way up to the Supremes)

[TuscanDreams]

I agree with you on all of this. I would like to add that prior to representing Scott, Geragos also said "this man is a sociopath if he did this crime". It has long been my opinion that Geragos has no doubt that Scott is a sociopath and knew a proper mitigation investigation would confirm this is so. Since Scott's "IMAGE" is something to protect for a possible future successful appeal/re-trial, Geragos wasn't interested in attempting to mitigate Scott's sentence with factual evidence about his serious personality disorder, IMO. And, once he was convicted, I have long believed his team felt the death sentence was the preferred outcome ( Scott safer on Death Row, free/automatic appeals all the way up to the Supremes)

The most unethical situation I've ever seen in my entire life regarding criminal justice is Mark Geragos taking the case of Scott Peterson. MG went before tons of cameras, with his sunglasses on, to maintain Scott was innocent. This is the same attorney who appeared on talk shows stating that Scott was stupid, a sociopath, etc.

Geragos thought this was a great career move for him- and that didn't work out so well. Most of his peers think he's a jerk- I've even heard attorneys that know him who call him "Hollywood Mark" because he wears his sunglasses in court.

[thinkaboutit]

May I remind you that Geragos was not present in court for Scott's sentencing. Once Scott was found guilty, Geragos washed his hands.

I don't really think it had anything to do with Scott's case - just that Geragos was moving on. Defendants to defend, cases to test, people to see and do lunch with.

JMO.

There were several reasons for that - Geragos talked about it on LKL. One of the reasons was that NO ONE - not even Judge Delucchi expected this jury to come back with a verdict as quickly as they did - after just being told that they need to start deliberations all over again.

Geragos washed his hands of it? That's why he has said numerous times - since the verdict and subsequent death sentence that he believes Scott is innocent?

[JustMyOpinion]

There were several reasons for that - Geragos talked about it on LKL. One of the reasons was that NO ONE - not even Judge Delucchi expected this jury to come back with a verdict as quickly as they did - after just being told that they need to start deliberations all over again.



I don't buy the excuses or explanations Geragos has given. He could have managed a private plane flight back to Modesto, IMO. And, this was the crucial deliberation phase in a death-penalty case that had taken months to try, if Geragos was too bored or too busy to stay close in the event of a verdict, he had no business representing this client, IMO.

[accordn2me]

I don't buy the excuses or explanations Geragos has given. He could have managed a private plane flight back to Modesto, IMO. And, this was the crucial deliberation phase in a death-penalty case that had taken months to try, if Geragos was too bored or too busy to stay close in the event of a verdict, he had no business representing this client, IMO.Maybe Scott's daddy wasn't expecting it either. Was anyone in court for Scott that day?

Personally, I don't think it's terrible if no one was. It's not like they could run over and console him....even if he would have been emotional....

[accordn2me]

There were several reasons for that - Geragos talked about it on LKL. One of the reasons was that NO ONE - not even Judge Delucchi expected this jury to come back with a verdict as quickly as they did - after just being told that they need to start deliberations all over again.

Geragos washed his hands of it? That's why he has said numerous times - since the verdict and subsequent death sentence that he believes Scott is innocent?

Think about it, Geragos has said numerous times - since the Peterson family paid him hundreds of thousands of, if not a million, dollars to represent Scott - he believes Scott is innocent.:rolleyes:

[Radio Flyer]

By the thread title, I thought this was going to be a discussion of the legal aspects of ineffective assitance of counel. Instead it's a Geragos bashfest

[Lili007]

There were several reasons for that - Geragos talked about it on LKL. One of the reasons was that NO ONE - not even Judge Delucchi expected this jury to come back with a verdict as quickly as they did - after just being told that they need to start deliberations all over again.

Geragos washed his hands of it? That's why he has said numerous times - since the verdict and subsequent death sentence that he believes Scott is innocent?

I don't care what his reasons were! Neither does the court. He's THE defense counsel, paid $1million upfront to defend Scott.

He didn't think the jury was going to be swift with their verdict? Well, tough!

That's HIS problem! He's not paid a million bucks to go take care of another case, when his murder case is in the CRUCIAL phase. :punch:

[Lili007]

By the thread title, I thought this was going to be a discussion of the legal aspects of ineffective assitance of counel. Instead it's a Geragos bashfest

Geragos WAS "the Counsel".

If the shoe fits.

[JustMyOpinion]

Maybe Scott's daddy wasn't expecting it either. Was anyone in court for Scott that day?

Personally, I don't think it's terrible if no one was. It's not like they could run over and console him....even if he would have been emotional....

Jackie Peterson was present for the verdict, but my feeling about Geragos and his role differs from my expectations of Scott's family members. This was the verdict Geragos helped earn for his client, standing up to face it with him was an essential part of his professional job, IMO. I don't care if his ego was bruised and he couldn't enter that courtroom with his typical arrogant, boastful, bullying swagger! Stand up next to your client & take the defeat! Your client is now facing a LWOP or death sentence, represent HIM.

[Lili007]

Jackie Peterson was present for the verdict, but my feeling about Geragos and his role differs from my expectations of Scott's family members. This was the verdict Geragos helped earn for his client, standing up to face it with him was an essential part of his professional job, IMO. I don't care if his ego was bruised and he couldn't enter that courtroom with his typical arrogant, boastful, bullying swagger! Stand up next to your client & take the defeat! Your client is now facing a LWOP or death sentence, represent HIM.

I totally agree.

[Lili007]

There were several reasons for that - Geragos talked about it on LKL. One of the reasons was that NO ONE - not even Judge Delucchi expected this jury to come back with a verdict as quickly as they did - after just being told that they need to start deliberations all over again.

Geragos washed his hands of it? That's why he has said numerous times - since the verdict and subsequent death sentence that he believes Scott is innocent?

THINK about it, please. What does it hurt if Geragos just apololgised? Does that hurt him, his image,his family? It's just too ridiculous for words.

JMO

[thinkaboutit]

Think about it, Geragos has said numerous times - since the Peterson family paid him hundreds of thousands of, if not a million, dollars to represent Scott - he believes Scott is innocent.:rolleyes:

Geragos made these comments long after the Petersons ceased being his clients. :rolleyes:

Geragos gained nothing by saying Scott is innocent. In fact, it makes Geragos look more incompetent - that he had a client that was innocent - and his defense got him sentenced to death.

[thinkaboutit]

THINK about it, please. What does it hurt if Geragos just apololgised? Does that hurt him, his image,his family? It's just too ridiculous for words.

JMO

Who said Geragos apologized? Maybe you should go back and re-read the discussion.

[thinkaboutit]

I don't care what his reasons were! Neither does the court. He's THE defense counsel, paid $1million upfront to defend Scott.

He didn't think the jury was going to be swift with their verdict? Well, tough!

That's HIS problem! He's not paid a million bucks to go take care of another case, when his murder case is in the CRUCIAL phase. :punch:

I'll explain in more detail....

A juror was replaced on Wednesday. The entire jury was told they had to start deliberations ALL OVER AGAIN. There was no court Thursday - so no deliberations Thursday. The jury was going to be released EARLY Friday. Geragos consulted with Delucchi whether it was okay for him to go to L.A. for another case - Delucchi told him go - no way this jury will be back with a verdict. Because they shouldn't have been.

Lee not being present only confirms what Geragos said. If anyone expected these jurors to come back with a verdict after just a few hours of "new deliberations" after MONTHS of testimony - Lee would have been there for his son.

Delucchi may have been willing to postpone the reading of the verdict for Geragos to get back in time (which Geragos wanted to do) - but the lynch mob outside the courthouse was a security threat - and Delucchi wouldn't do it. So you can basically thank those G's outside the courthouse - some of whom were wearing disgusting/offensive t-shirts - for Geragos and Lee not being there when the verdict was read.

[JustMyOpinion]

I'll explain in more detail....


Delucchi may have been willing to postpone the reading of the verdict for Geragos to get back in time (which Geragos wanted to do) - but the lynch mob outside the courthouse was a security threat - and Delucchi wouldn't do it. So you can basically thank those G's outside the courthouse - some of whom were wearing disgusting/offensive t-shirts - for Geragos and Lee not being there when the verdict was read.

I wasn't aware Delucchi was asked to postpone and refused. Can you link to a statement from Geragos where he claimed this? I didn't see a "lynch mob" outside the courtroom, but I did see a large crowd gathered awaiting the reading of the verdict, and I agree it posed a challenge to security for a large crowd to stay assembled there over a long period of time. I cannot see blaming the public for Geragos's unwillingness to stick around which resulted in HIS absence in court during reading of the verdict.IMO, if Geragos was too busy or too bored to stay nearby during jury deliberations at the end of this extraordinary & long death penalty case, perhaps he ought to have declined reprentation from the outset, ( especially since he had earlier opined Scott might be a sociopath and that State wouldn't have any trouble convicting him!)

[enlightenme]

I'll explain in more detail....

A juror was replaced on Wednesday. The entire jury was told they had to start deliberations ALL OVER AGAIN. There was no court Thursday - so no deliberations Thursday. The jury was going to be released EARLY Friday. Geragos consulted with Delucchi whether it was okay for him to go to L.A. for another case - Delucchi told him go - no way this jury will be back with a verdict. Because they shouldn't have been.

Lee not being present only confirms what Geragos said. If anyone expected these jurors to come back with a verdict after just a few hours of "new deliberations" after MONTHS of testimony - Lee would have been there for his son.

Delucchi may have been willing to postpone the reading of the verdict for Geragos to get back in time (which Geragos wanted to do) - but the lynch mob outside the courthouse was a security threat - and Delucchi wouldn't do it. So you can basically thank those G's outside the courthouse - some of whom were wearing disgusting/offensive t-shirts - for Geragos and Lee not being there when the verdict was read.

The crowd outside was not a lynch mob and certainly posed no security threat, IMO! One of the big reasons people were assembled outside of the courtroom is that they were piping the verdict on speakers outside.

If the trial had been televised, the "lynch mob", as you call them, most likely would have been sitting in their comfy living rooms for the verdict.

[Hey Paula]

I'll explain in more detail....

A juror was replaced on Wednesday. The entire jury was told they had to start deliberations ALL OVER AGAIN. There was no court Thursday - so no deliberations Thursday. The jury was going to be released EARLY Friday. Geragos consulted with Delucchi whether it was okay for him to go to L.A. for another case - Delucchi told him go - no way this jury will be back with a verdict. Because they shouldn't have been.

Lee not being present only confirms what Geragos said. If anyone expected these jurors to come back with a verdict after just a few hours of "new deliberations" after MONTHS of testimony - Lee would have been there for his son.

Delucchi may have been willing to postpone the reading of the verdict for Geragos to get back in time (which Geragos wanted to do) - but the lynch mob outside the courthouse was a security threat - and Delucchi wouldn't do it. So you can basically thank those G's outside the courthouse - some of whom were wearing disgusting/offensive t-shirts - for Geragos and Lee not being there when the verdict was read.

Hi TAI!

If a straw poll was taken when the replaced juror who, as an alternate juror, heard the same testimony as the others, entered deliberations, and they were unanimous in their guilty verdict, what further points were there to discuss/deliberate?

I hadn't read/heard about Geragos discussing leaving for LA with Judge Delucchi, and am surprised to read your post that he agreed it was the right thing for MG to do. At such a crucial stage of the trial, I think it was presumptuous, on the part of all parties concerned, to agree to travel away from the court because they believed the verdict would be delayed.

IMO

[accordn2me]

"Please try to remember that the burden of proof is not on us to prove Scott innocent, but rather for the state to prove him guilty."


That statement was true before the verdict, correct? The state met that burden. Now that Scott was found guilty, the burden of proof has shifted, has it not?

Should there be a second trial, I certainly hope the sentiments that I've read lately from some who believe wholeheartedly in Scott's innocence doesn't leak into the defense strategy. As my mentor once wisely posted, "There is no such thing as "proof by repeated assertion." Better get some warm bodies inside the witness box to back up those ideas, theories, promises and beliefs.

[A_seeker]

[QUOTE=accordn2me;8836194]"Please try to remember that the burden of proof is not on us to prove Scott innocent, but rather for the state to prove him guilty."


That statement was true before the verdict, correct? The state met that burden. Now that Scott was found guilty, the burden of proof has shifted, has it not?

QUOTE]

Excellent point...
Thank you!

[A_seeker]

Would someone please help me figure out what I am doing wrong? When I quote an entire post, it works fine, but when I "snip" it's not working right. I've never had this problem on other message boards. I'm obviously overlooking some simple thing I should be doing. I feel my IQ dwindling as I type....please help! :o

[accordn2me]

Would someone please help me figure out what I am doing wrong? When I quote an entire post, it works fine, but when I "snip" it's not working right. I've never had this problem on other message boards. I'm obviously overlooking some simple thing I should be doing. I feel my IQ dwindling as I type....please help! :o

You have to make sure this part is at the beginning:

and this part is at the end:

of the words you want quoted.

let's see if this works.....

[One2Snoop]

Would someone please help me figure out what I am doing wrong? When I quote an entire post, it works fine, but when I "snip" it's not working right. I've never had this problem on other message boards. I'm obviously overlooking some simple thing I should be doing. I feel my IQ dwindling as I type....please help! :o

If you look in your post, when you snipped it you also took the "end quote" off. It should look like this
[ /quote] (I put a space in the example so it doesn't mess up your quoted post above)

[accordn2me]

Would someone please help me figure out what I am doing wrong? When I quote an entire post, it works fine, but when I "snip" it's not working right. I've never had this problem on other message boards. I'm obviously overlooking some simple thing I should be doing. I feel my IQ dwindling as I type....please help! :o
nope..you can't see what i mean...

the first thing in and the last the last with word QUOTE instead of brackets have to be there....

does that make sense?

[accordn2me]

Wow.

If so many people can figure this out and answer so fast, why do some people STILL think Scott registered his boat?
Did the state know they had the burden of proving the boat was not registered? Did they care to meet such a burden?

[Anne2719]

Wow.

If so many people can figure this out and answer so fast, why do some people STILL think Scott registered his boat?
I think you forgot the tags here. Oh wait, I think we don't have those . . . for good reason!

[thinkaboutit]

I wasn't aware Delucchi was asked to postpone and refused. Can you link to a statement from Geragos where he claimed this? I didn't see a "lynch mob" outside the courtroom, but I did see a large crowd gathered awaiting the reading of the verdict, and I agree it posed a challenge to security for a large crowd to stay assembled there over a long period of time. I cannot see blaming the public for Geragos's unwillingness to stick around which resulted in HIS absence in court during reading of the verdict.IMO, if Geragos was too busy or too bored to stay nearby during jury deliberations at the end of this extraordinary & long death penalty case, perhaps he ought to have declined reprentation from the outset, ( especially since he had earlier opined Scott might be a sociopath and that State wouldn't have any trouble convicting him!)

Like I said before - no one expected this jury to come back with a verdict on Friday. You're right - Geragos didn't say Delucchi refused - but he did say that Delucchi said the sheriff didn't want to hold onto the verdict because of the crowd outside to him, Geragos said they felt it was a public safety issue, and Geragos didn't want to ask him because of that:

KING: You think Scott Peterson didn't do this, right?

GERAGOS: I went in there, and I took that case, and I became convinced. And it is -- and I told the jury during the penalty phase. I talked from the heart to the jury. And said, look, there's no harder thing for me to do than have to sit here and beg you to spare his life, when I believe this, and that I felt, you know, as a -- as a lawyer, you cannot feel any lower than in a death penalty case to have somebody that you truly believe is innocent, to be convicted and then be sentenced to death. I mean, there is bar none, at least for me professionally, nothing worse than you can experience than that.

KING: So what was it like for your gut when they announced the verdict?

GERAGOS: Well, the biggest problem, and one of the things that I regret, is that I wasn't there. I had...

KING: Ah-hah! GERAGOS: Yeah, I had asked the judge the week before, because I had another case in L.A., and I said, the following Friday, that judge wanted me down -- the L.A. judge -- wanted me down there to do a case. And Thursday before the verdict came out was a holiday, a court holiday. So the jury was not going to deliberate. I was up there on Wednesday. And on Wednesday, we had one of the brouhahas with the jurors, and we replaced it and put in a new juror. And we did that in the afternoon.

So I talked to the judge, and he said, go down there, there's not going to be a verdict. And Judge Delucchi and I agreed, there's no way that just putting somebody in, the jury getting the instructions, you have got to start anew, not deliberating on Thursday. And then Friday, what most people don't know, is that he had already told one of the -- promised one of the other jurors that they were going to get off, and it was only going to be a half-day. Plus, in addition to that, the jury had asked that a priest be sent in, because they were sequestered. So all indication were they were going to deliberate through until the following week.

I went down there. Then out of nowhere, we get the verdict.

KING: You were shocked?

GERAGOS: Yeah, we were as shocked as you can believe. But one of the things that the judge had indicated, I said, look, I can try and get a private jet up there or scramble some way to get up there. And he had indicated, look, the sheriff does not want to hold on to this, because as you probably saw, the courthouse had become encircled with people. They were afraid from the public safety standpoint there was going to be a problem, and I wasn't going to create a public safety problem by saying, hey, hold it for me, I got to get up there.

Here's the link:

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/05/lkl.01.html


You didn't see a lynch mob?....pretty close. Did you see the women with the disgusting t-shirts of Scott with his head in the noose? Even if I had agreed with the verdict, I would have been disgusted by that. I'd call it a lynch mob.

[thinkaboutit]

Their corrupt investigation showed that the boat was actually registered to The Media™, but Broccini excised it from his report.

Do you realize that you have 46 posts that say, essentially, nothing? If you're not here to contribute to the discussion - then could you please move along?

[A_seeker]

does that make sense?

OK, I am trying again.

[A_seeker]

If you look in your post, when you snipped it you also took the "end quote" off. (I put a space in the example so it doesn't mess up your quoted post above)

By George I think I've got it! I didn't realize I had left a bracket off....duhhh for me. Thank ya very much!

[JustMyOpinion]

Like I said before - no one expected this jury to come back with a verdict on Friday. You're right - Geragos didn't say Delucchi refused - but he did say that Delucchi said the sheriff didn't want to hold onto the verdict because of the crowd outside to him, Geragos said they felt it was a public safety issue, and Geragos didn't want to ask him because of that:


Here's the link:

[URL="http://http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/05/lkl.01.html"]http://http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/05/lkl.01.html[/URL

You didn't see a lynch mob?....pretty close. Did you see the women with the disgusting t-shirts of Scott with his head in the noose? Even if I had agreed with the verdict, I would have been disgusted by that. I'd call it a lynch mob.

Thanks for providing the link, and posting what Geragos said. I appreciate your efforts in finding it in response to my request. I don't think a T-Shirt on one woman ( no I didn't see "her") defines an entire group of people. I personally believe "lynch mob" is a phrase that doesn't apply to the situation in Redwood City on the day of the verdict. I think the people were using their right to assemble to await the reading of the verdict after a long trial in a court of law. I did find the conduct of a small group of people awaiting Scott's arrival in Modesto after his arrest to be highly objectionable and although I don't utilize the term "lynch mob", I would say it would more accurately describe the "group mentality" of the small gathering in Modesto that night. I thought Geragos was correct in seeking the change of venue from Modesto ( many people living there had personally participated in searches for Laci, may have known Laci and her family,may have felt very angry with Scott))and I was not at all surprised the court ruled in Scott's favor on that motion.

[thinkaboutit]

Thanks for providing the link, and posting what Geragos said. I appreciate your efforts in finding it in response to my request. I don't think a T-Shirt on one woman ( no I didn't see "her") defines an entire group of people. I personally believe "lynch mob" is a phrase that doesn't apply to the situation in Redwood City on the day of the verdict. I think the people were using their right to assemble to await the reading of the verdict after a long trial in a court of law. I did find the conduct of a small group of people awaiting Scott's arrival in Modesto after his arrest to be highly objectionable and although I don't utilize the term "lynch mob", I would say it would more accurately describe the "group mentality" of the small gathering in Modesto that night. I thought Geragos was correct in seeking the change of venue from Modesto ( many people living there had personally participated in searches for Laci, may have known Laci and her family,may have felt very angry with Scott))and I was not at all surprised the court ruled in Scott's favor on that motion.

You are welcome.

[enlightenme]

Do you realize that you have 46 posts that say, essentially, nothing? If you're not here to contribute to the discussion - then could you please move along?


Adnoid HAS contributed to the discussion on many occasions. He just helped a poster with quoting.

He provides much needed comic relief at times too, which I appreciate immensely!

[A_seeker]

You need to leave the rectangular brackets in place. If you edit your previous post now and insert the characters

[/

before the final

QUOTE]

it will magically work!

Thanks for your help....I hate feeling stupid...even for a nanosecond. :)

[A_seeker]

You have proof of that? Receipts? Contracts? Links?


Oh my....looks who's awake. Are you feeling well rested after the posting spree yesterday?

[One2Snoop]

You have proof of that? Receipts? Contracts? Links?

Are you saying that Geragos wasn't paid a million dollars? And why does anyone need to provide proof, a receipt and a contract? :shrug: What purpose will it serve? NONE.

[Invrdv8]

There were several reasons for that - Geragos talked about it on LKL. One of the reasons was that NO ONE - not even Judge Delucchi expected this jury to come back with a verdict as quickly as they did - after just being told that they need to start deliberations all over again.

Geragos washed his hands of it? That's why he has said numerous times - since the verdict and subsequent death sentence that he believes Scott is innocent?

Of course, Geragos maintains that Scott is innocent. One certainly wouldn't expect him to say, "Yeah, the jury was right, he's guilty as all get out!" Now how would that look after he's taken the mil+ bucks from the Petersons? Have you ever heard of an attorney admitting his client was guilty after he lost the case? Here's a question. If Scott would win an appeal because of ineffective council could the Petersons sue to have their money refunded?

[Invrdv8]

You have proof of that? Receipts? Contracts? Links?

Good grief, it's common knowledge. If Debra Opri can charge over $620,000.00 I have no doubt Geragos went well over the mil mark. He was just on TV saying that for an attorney to charge $475.00 an hour was not out of line. You do the math.

[Invrdv8]

Several people were wearing those shirts.
People actually howled their murderous rage at Lee and Jackie Peterson as they left court.
Throughout the trial, people walked up to the un-sequestered jurors and made comments like "Fry him" to them.
Redwood City was just as infected with hatred as Modesto itself.

Another good point for the appeal.
Several people were wearing those T-shirts. Was that a crime? There was no profanity printed on them. Was there a dress code for those waiting outside the court to hear the verdict?

People "howled their murderous rage at Lee and Jackie Peterson"? They may have heckled them. I think "murderous rage" is an exaggeration to say the least.

Where are you getting your information about what went on outside the court and the mood of the crowd? Were you there to observe all this first hand or are you going by second hand info? I watched the crowd, on TV of course, and saw people milling around, talking, laughing but, I NEVER saw anything that made me believe the crowd was going to go berserk if an innocent verdict came down.

[Anne2719]

I was pretty disgusted by the crowd's reaction when the verdict was read. It reminded me of the old lady knitting in front of the guillotine in some movie I saw years ago.

[A_seeker]

My greatest fear is that I may be called as juror on a case where I am sure that the accused is guilty - but the prosecution fails to overcome reasonable doubt and I have to acquit (as in the OJ trial). That would be a dreadful thing.

I don't see how that is possible.

[Anne2719]

'Tricoteuses'! A term a politician once used which caused much thumbing through dictionaries!

People all too often treat these cases as if they were sporting events - and root for the team they want to win. My greatest fear is that I may be called as juror on a case where I am sure that the accused is guilty - but the prosecution fails to overcome reasonable doubt and I have to acquit (as in the OJ trial). That would be a dreadful thing.
I agree -- as I've said, I'm leaning toward thinking Scott did it, but I don't know that I could have convicted him with the evidence that was presented. Same with OJ. And in no case could I vote for the death penalty.

[accordn2me]

I agree -- as I've said, I'm leaning toward thinking Scott did it, but I don't know that I could have convicted him with the evidence that was presented. Same with OJ. And in no case could I vote for the death penalty.Same with OJ? Are you kidding? OJ had way more evidence against him...(hold thy tongues, guilties!) there was a blood trail for Pete's sake! Do you really believe Mark Furhman planted the glove?

[Anne2719]

Same with OJ? Are you kidding? OJ had way more evidence against him...(hold thy tongues, guilties!) there was a blood trail for Pete's sake! Do you really believe Mark Furhman planted the glove?
No. But the prosecution was way too cocky, and didn't do its job. Actually, I probably would've voted for conviction in the OJ trial, but there was a lot of sloppiness on the part of the prosecution.

[TuscanDreams]

That sounds a bit disrespectful.

Hi Adnoid, welcome to the forum.

I'm sure that if you've followed this case long enough, you know how much passion is brought forth. How can anyone not feel empathy for a woman and her child who were murdered?

That said, I don't think you meant to come off as harsh, I think that perhaps you were posting and as we can't "hear" the tone of your post, it sounds bad.

[TuscanDreams]

Several people were wearing those shirts.
People actually howled their murderous rage at Lee and Jackie Peterson as they left court.
Throughout the trial, people walked up to the un-sequestered jurors and made comments like "Fry him" to them.
Redwood City was just as infected with hatred as Modesto itself.

Another good point for the appeal.

In the John Robinson serial killing trial, a radio show gave out T-Shirts to anyone who'd take them- the shirts said, "Throw Robinson in the barrell" His victims were found in a barrel.

The defense attempted to show that the shirts in the Robinson case tainted the jury. However, the judge polled the jury and only 2 of the jurors even noticed the shirts and they said they didn't care.

[TuscanDreams]

I wonder if that was true? But in any case the evidence was pretty overwhelming. If they'd found Laci in a barrel in Scott's locked warehouse we wouldn't all be here now.

Well, you can find it online somewhere if you want to check the accuracy. Google John Robinson Kansas Murder Trial. The evidence in that case was smashingly overwhelming.

[enlightenme]

But that is the law and the instruction from the judge. The OJ jury followed the law, as did the Robert Blake jury. Your opinion doesn't matter - and you aren't allowed to guess.

Nothing happened to the jurors in either case, despite the unpopular verdict, did it? A few of the Peterson jurors received death threats AFTER the verdict, so I don't imagine it was people that agreed with the guilty verdict.

[A_seeker]

But that is the law and the instruction from the judge. The OJ jury followed the law, as did the Robert Blake jury. Your opinion doesn't matter - and you aren't allowed to guess.

I'm sorry you have trouble with comprehension. You said it would be awful if you KNEW something, but had DOUBT. I'm telling you if you KNOW, there isn't doubt. See?????

[A_seeker]

Thanks. I have followed the case from about 12/27/2002 and am pretty close to it. I have also used the same screen name consistently unless I was intentionally barred from participation because of who I am, in which case I assumed another name for that forum. So my views are widely known. I don't try to hide by using different names for different venues, so I'm easy to find and attack.

I have an enormous amount of empathy for Laci, her family and her friends. I have a son the same age that Conner would have been - his due date was within a week of Laci's and he was born just a little bit early.

Scott's behavior is and was appalling. I will never understand how anyone, especially a woman, can defend infidelity the way Scott's supporters do. I cannot understand a lot of things that people come out of the woodwork to support, although I have my theories about why they do.

The evidence against Scott to me is compelling and consistent. His conviction and sentence, to me, are just.

After years and years of following this kind of case, I've found it's almost always the women who defend handsome and charming males who commit murder. Some of them hide behind men's names when they post, to give more weight to their opinions....because people who excuse men like that, generally think men's opinions are the ones that count. It is a fascinating study in psychology....why women "fall in love" with sociopaths.

[accordn2me]

I'm sorry you have trouble with comprehension. You said it would be awful if you KNEW something, but had DOUBT. I'm telling you if you KNOW, there isn't doubt. See?????Furthermore, seeker, can you PROVE to a person who has been blind since birth that an apple is red?

[enlightenme]

Justin Falconer got death threats and had his truck vandalized. Fran Gorman now claims she was for conviction - although Guinasso wouldn't have kicked her off the jury if that were true. Jackson left the country!

When will people realize this isn't some sort of 'ultimate sporting event'? It is supposed to be a search for truth.


Falconer probably vandallized his truck himself and SAID he got death threats when he likely did not, he was such an attention hound, IMO. He was off the jury, so why would anyone want to send him death threats?

Guinasso cannot kick anyone off a jury, that's up to the judge. He reported jury misconduct, like a good juror is supposed to do.

Proof that Jackson left the country?

[accordn2me]

Define red.It's the color of the dress Amber wore to the Christmas party with Scott on Dec. 14th.

[accordn2me]

How would you explain that to a blind person? BTW, that is circular definition (http://neptune.spaceports.com/~words/beavis.html).You are not blind, Jim Jones. And no, I cannot PROVE that you are not blind. I just KNOW. And since red only has 3 letters, I demand the triangular definition.

[JustMyOpinion]

That was Delucchi's fear, not mine. However there was plenty of coverage on TV and in the ModBee, and the latter is archived pretty well.

Judge Delucchi has not ever stated his "fears"( regarding what the crowd would do if the verdict was innocent. ) You seem to project your own thoughts onto others, IMO. I do believe it's possible Geragos was telling the truth when he said the Judge expressed concerns to him about crowd-control over a long period of time and didn't want to wait for Geragos to arrive ( which is why Geragos claims he did not fly back for the verdict)

[accordn2me]

Who was the strongest witness for the defense (not necessarily presented as defense witness)?

[JustMyOpinion]

Who was the strongest witness for the defense (not necessarily presented as defense witness)?

This is an interesting question. I didn't think there was a strong witness for the defense. When Geragos was able to show Brocchini testified incorrectly about the content of the Martha Stewart program on that day, this was a strong moment for the Defense, IMO. But in so doing, "Scott's timeline"was more firmly established for the jury, (he was still in the home at 9:48 a.m. )When Geragos was able to show Brocchini excised a written report, and Brocchini admitted under oath that he must have done so, this was also a strong moment for the Defense, IMO.

[thinkaboutit]

Of course, Geragos maintains that Scott is innocent. One certainly wouldn't expect him to say, "Yeah, the jury was right, he's guilty as all get out!" Now how would that look after he's taken the mil+ bucks from the Petersons? Have you ever heard of an attorney admitting his client was guilty after he lost the case? Here's a question. If Scott would win an appeal because of ineffective council could the Petersons sue to have their money refunded?

I have no idea if they could sue or not. An attorney admitting his client is guilty after the case and an attorney speaking out that his convicted client is innocent, is, imo, two entirely different things. My point was ....there was no reason for him to do this....unless he really believed Scott was innocent.

[thinkaboutit]

Adnoid HAS contributed to the discussion on many occasions. He just helped a poster with quoting.

He provides much needed comic relief at times too, which I appreciate immensely!




I'm all for comic relief - just not at the expense of anyone on this board - G's or NG's - nor any comic relief that does nothing but disrupt the discussion.

[thinkaboutit]

Thanks. I have followed the case from about 12/27/2002 and am pretty close to it. I have also used the same screen name consistently unless I was intentionally barred from participation because of who I am, in which case I assumed another name for that forum. So my views are widely known. I don't try to hide by using different names for different venues, so I'm easy to find and attack.

I have an enormous amount of empathy for Laci, her family and her friends. I have a son the same age that Conner would have been - his due date was within a week of Laci's and he was born just a little bit early.

Scott's behavior is and was appalling. I will never understand how anyone, especially a woman, can defend infidelity the way Scott's supporters do. I cannot understand a lot of things that people come out of the woodwork to support, although I have my theories about why they do.

The evidence against Scott to me is compelling and consistent. His conviction and sentence, to me, are just.

I guess we haven't posted on the same boards - so I am not familiar with you or your nic!

Good post - much better than the one liners we've been seeing up until now.

I have a small issue with one of your statements though. In my group of Scott supporters - none of us defend infidelity - never have - never will.

[accordn2me]

This is an interesting question. I didn't think there was a strong witness for the defense. When Geragos was able to show Brocchini testified incorrectly about the content of the Martha Stewart program on that day, this was a strong moment for the Defense, IMO. But in so doing, "Scott's timeline"was more firmly established for the jury, (he was still in the home at 9:48 a.m. )When Geragos was able to show Brocchini excised a written report, and Brocchini admitted under oath that he must have done so, this was also a strong moment for the Defense, IMO.
:read: The more I read....the less I think there might be one, JMO.

2 strong Moments for the defense....:read:

[cookiewench]

I have a small issue with one of your statements though. In my group of Scott supporters - none of us defend infidelity - never have - never will.


When I was on your board, it was not defended but was excused, downplayed, pinned on Amber & Shawn, and sympathized with.

[attorneywan2be]

When I was on your board, it was not defended but was excused, downplayed, pinned on Amber & Shawn, and sympathized with.

I'm not sure what board you are referring to..anyhow..

Infidelity as an act was never downplayed..however, infidelity as a motive in this case was totally rejected..




IMO

[Wudge]

I'm not sure what board you are referring to..anyhow..

Infidelity as an act was never downplayed..however, infidelity as a motive in this case was totally rejected..




IMO


I think some people think that you own Scott Is Innocent.

[attorneywan2be]

I think some people think that you own Scott Is Innocent.


LOL!!

The owner of Scott is Innocent is Marlene..Wudge as well as others can attest to the fact that I'm not Marlene...LOL

[JustMyOpinion]

I'm not sure what board you are referring to..anyhow..

Infidelity as an act was never downplayed..however, infidelity as a motive in this case was totally rejected..




IMO
I'm confused. Are you stating your own rejection of infidelity as a motive in this case? ( I personally think Scott's successful deception, manipulation & seduction of Amber and their affair helped fuel his motivation to rid himself of his wife/baby & life in Modesto) But, I don't think "infidelity in general" was a primary motivation. JMO I think it's highly likely there was more than one trigger which motivated Scott to murder his family..I think the pregnancy was a big trigger, JMO There are several ways Scott may have believed he would profit from murdering Laci & Conner and painting himself as the grieving victim of another's crime, IMO.

[Wudge]

Wudge, in my opinion, I don't believe those comments were to aw2b. You might want to re-read cookiewench's post.

I just decided to use A2WB's post to make them aware of that (pretty distinct IMO) possibility. We both know that people think the owner of SII posts here, clarify as you might wish.

[cookiewench]

I think some people think that you own Scott Is Innocent.

If you reread it, you'll see that I was addressing a different poster, not a2b.


When I posted on the SII board, they certainly didn't just shrug off the infidelity as a common, ordinary thing. No biggie.



IMO, there are differing levels of infidelity, and Scott was in the lowest of low category.

This wasn't a man who found himself attracted to someone he was thrown together with. This was a man who had a miserable, nagging wife who treated him badly. This wasn't even a man who had a shred of honesty within the dishonesty of the affair.

He lied to Amber about being married, and led her to believe his wife had passed away. He showed his complete disrespect for his unborn son by first saying that he never wanted any children, and then refusing to even confirm his paternity to Amber.

He set himself with an entirely different personna to Amber. Scott didn't just want an affair (there are plenty of woman who will have an affair with a married man), he wanted an affair with someone he could sucker, someone who would think he was single, someone who he knew he would be devastated if she found out the truth, someone who was vulnerable.

[JustMyOpinion]

He set himself with an entirely different personna to Amber. Scott didn't just want an affair (there are plenty of woman who will have an affair with a married man), he wanted an affair with someone he could sucker, someone who would think he was single, someone who he knew he would be devastated if she found out the truth, someone who was vulnerable.

ITA, cookiewench. I think it's highly probable Scott is very capable of finding & exploiting vulnerability, and he likely did the same with Laci, IMO. ( it's reported she was in a long relationship with an abusive partner prior to meeting Scott). I have often thought it's possible Scott married because the "image" he could project in this role made him appear "normal" to others. He could live a double-life and not get "caught"..JMO His treatment of Amber showed how manipulative, how deceptive, how callous he actually IS, IMO. As for friends & family who said they thought he was a good husband & he & Laci had a perfect marriage, I doubt they would have expressed this same opinion about Scott had they known of the content of his conversations with Shawn, his conversations & affair with Amber. JMO

[TuscanDreams]

I have no idea if they could sue or not. An attorney admitting his client is guilty after the case and an attorney speaking out that his convicted client is innocent, is, imo, two entirely different things. My point was ....there was no reason for him to do this....unless he really believed Scott was innocent.

I'm not sure if Geragos took this case because he thought Scott was innocent or because Geragos wanted the publicity for his law firm. Geragos doesn't strike me as the kind of attorney who takes on a case for a cause, but I could be wrong.

[TuscanDreams]

ITA, cookiewench. I think it's highly probable Scott is very capable of finding & exploiting vulnerability, and he likely did the same with Laci, IMO. ( it's reported she was in a long relationship with an abusive partner prior to meeting Scott). I have often thought it's possible Scott married because the "image" he could project in this role made him appear "normal" to others. He could live a double-life and not get "caught"..JMO His treatment of Amber showed how manipulative, how deceptive, how callous he actually IS, IMO. As for friends & family who said they thought he was a good husband & he & Laci had a perfect marriage, I doubt they would have expressed this same opinion about Scott had they known of the content of his conversations with Shawn, his conversations & affair with Amber. JMO

A friend of mine was a victim of domestic violence, she and her husband were married for a really long time before she said he'd been beating her since the day after their honeymoon. I agree that Laci's family and friends would probably have been the last to know if domestic violence was an issue in their relationship.

[accordn2me]

ITA, cookiewench. I think it's highly probable Scott is very capable of finding & exploiting vulnerability, and he likely did the same with Laci, IMO. ( it's reported she was in a long relationship with an abusive partner prior to meeting Scott). I have often thought it's possible Scott married because the "image" he could project in this role made him appear "normal" to others. He could live a double-life and not get "caught"..JMO His treatment of Amber showed how manipulative, how deceptive, how callous he actually IS, IMO. As for friends & family who said they thought he was a good husband & he & Laci had a perfect marriage, I doubt they would have expressed this same opinion about Scott had they known of the content of his conversations with Shawn, his conversations & affair with Amber. JMOThat's IT, JMO! Some call it "the media's demonization of Scott." I call it, "we all found out the truth about Scott." Along with Laci's family and friends, some of Scott's too, our uninformed opinions changed to informed opinions.

[Lili007]

That's IT, JMO! Some call it "the media's demonization of Scott." I call it, "we all found out the truth about Scott." Along with Laci's family and friends, some of Scott's too, our uninformed opinions changed to informed opinions.

Quite right! He gave media interviews against his attorney's advice and shot himself in the foot. I suppose the media are to be blamed for that as well.

JMO

[Lili007]

Their corrupt investigation showed that the boat was actually registered to The Media™, but Broccini excised it from his report.

Thank you.
:beer:

[Lili007]

Do you realize that you have 46 posts that say, essentially, nothing? If you're not here to contribute to the discussion - then could you please move along?

I think Adnoid has not only contributed a lot, but knows more about this case than some people have forgotten.

I've posted with Adnoid since the very early days of Laci's "disappearance" and I've never found him to be anything but a very honest, knowledgeable, intelligent and considerate poster. With a sense of humour - that's a bonus.

If you don't think Adnoid has anything to contribute, stick around.

JMO

[Lili007]

The only thing he did that shot him in the foot was killing his family. After that is was just a matter of time. As far as I know, there has not been a person born with a good enough memory to be an effective liar - they all eventually trip up. Scott started tripping up right out of the gate (golfishing). It was good advise he was given - to shut up - and he probably should have followed it, since it was the advice of a lawyer and he was, in fact, guilty. Ultimately, though, even if he hadn't said a word the truth would have come out. He couldn't hide his face from the cameras under that cap forever and his "vacation" was coming to an end, so Amber was going to become aware that the man who she thought was her single boyfriend was in fact the husband of a missing pregnant woman.

In my opinion, he thought he was smarter than everyone else and that people would believe him because, well, they just would.

Yes, I remember "golfishing" - that was a classic.

Not at all funny for Laci's family, but the Petersons thought it would fly. I guess that's another definition of desperate.

JMO

[Lili007]

The only thing he did that shot him in the foot was killing his family.

........snip

In my opinion, he thought he was smarter than everyone else and that people would believe him because, well, they just would.

Thankfully, they didn't.

They saw all too clearly the dark side of Scott Peterson, I believe. A MOST disturbing sight indeed.

JMO

[One2Snoop]

i think the media what convicted Scott.:mad:

That's your opinion, correct?
http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showthread.php?t=281098


I for one don't believe the media convicted Scott, but thats just my opinion.

[JustMyOpinion]

i think the media what convicted Scott.:mad:

The case did receive a huge amount of media attention, but I don't think the media "convicted him". A sworn jury of 12 deliberated evidence & convicted him. I would feel more sympathy for Scott regarding the media focus on this case had he and his family ( and/or their representatives) avoided media attention. Instead, they sought it, helped feed the story, long before Scott was ever arrested, IMO.

[JustMyOpinion]

but i do "think" that media convicted Scott. how many shows or reports did you see or hear that thought Scott was innocent? none that i "recall"

thank you for the link. sorry i dont have a link to my "opinion":read:

Hi saraliba
IIRC, there were many commentators who defended Scott in the media.
( i.e. Michael Cardoza, Daniel Horowitz, Bernie Grimm, Chris Pixely, just to name a few).

[Hey Paula]

Hi saraliba
IIRC, there were many commentators who defended Scott in the media.
( i.e. Michael Cardoza, Daniel Horowitz, Bernie Grimm, Chris Pixely, just to name a few).

I agree completely, JMO!

Greta's show was continually critical of the Pros, and favored the Def, right up until the day of the verdict. Greta, herself, was pro-defense, so that's why I was positively floored, when she announced, post-verdict, that she agreed with it completely. I respect that she waited until then to voice her true opinion, but feel she deserved an Oscar for her nightly pro-defense performance.

Even the CTV anchors, for the most part, were highly critical of the Pros, although I never was, due to the benefit of having read the daily transcripts. I felt they were focused and unwavering depite peer opposition. I applaud them in this regard.

I wholeheartedly believe the favors were stacked on the side of the Def, from the get-go, including gag orders, which didn't seemt to apply to them or the Peterson family. Even the bench rulings favored the Def, as well as the Court's respect accorded to MG.

Mark Geragos, through "insider leaks", was able to float numerous theories of satanists, park vagrants, etc, from the outset, and was even able to validate them through erroneous reports of Laci being "cut-up like a turkey", and false sightings of her in the park, and other parts of Modesto simultaneously. "Mr Hollywood" has a large media force and presence which facilitated his objectives.

Scott having been convicted, even after all of these efforts and disproportionate defense-oriented media and peer assistance, speaks to Scott's indefensible guilt, whichwas supported by overwhelming evidence.

IMO

[Hey Paula]

Hi saraliba
IIRC, there were many commentators who defended Scott in the media.
( i.e. Michael Cardoza, Daniel Horowitz, Bernie Grimm, Chris Pixely, just to name a few).

I agree completely, JMO!

Greta's show was continually critical of the Pros, and favored the Def, right up until the day of the verdict. Greta, herself, was pro-defense, so that's why I was positively floored, when she announced, post-verdict, that she agreed with it completely. I respect that she waited until then to voice her true opinion, but feel she deserved an Oscar for her nightly pro-defense performance.

Even the CTV anchors, for the most part, were highly critical of the Pros, although I never was, due to the benefit of having read the daily transcripts. I felt they were focused and unwavering depite peer opposition and criticism. I applaud them in this regard.

I wholeheartedly believe the favors were stacked on the side of the Def, from the get-go, including gag orders, which didn't seemt to apply to them or the Peterson family. Even the bench rulings favored the Def, as well as the Court's respect accorded to MG.

Early on, Mark Geragos, through "insider leaks", was able to float numerous theories of satanists, park vagrants, etc being responsible, and was even able to validate them through erroneous reports of Laci being "cut-up like a turkey", and false sightings of her in the park, and other parts of Modesto simultaneously. "Mr Hollywood" has a large media force and presence which facilitated his objectives.

Scott having been convicted, even after all of these efforts and disproportionate defense-oriented media and peer assistance, speaks to Scott's indefensible guilt, which was supported by overwhelming evidence.

IMO

[JustMyOpinion]

Scott was convicted in the media the same way Howard k. Stern is being convicted in the media.:read:

jmo

Since Anna's manner of death was ruled accidental, cause of death over-dosage of medications and Stern hasn't been arrested or charged with a crime, I fail to see how the cases compare, JMO.

[TuscanDreams]

Scott was convicted in the media the same way Howard k. Stern is being convicted in the media.:read:

jmo

I hope that doesn't mean that Lin Wood will start suing on Scott's behalf as well.

[accordn2me]

These are from a book called "Disorder in the American Courts." They are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters who endured the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place.

Q: Are you sexually active? A: No, I just lie there.

Q: What is your date of birth? A: July 15th. Q: What year? A: Every year.

Q: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact? A: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.

Q: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all? A: Yes. Q: And in what ways does it affect your memory? A: I forget. Q: You forget? Can you give us an example of something that you've forgotten?

Q: How old is your son, the one living with you? A: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which. Q: How long has he lived with you? A: Forty-five years.

Q: What was the first thing your husband said to you when he woke up that morning? A: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?" Q: And why did that upset you? A: My name is Susan.

Q: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo or the occult? A: We both do. Q: Voodoo? A: We do. Q: You do? A: Yes, voodoo.

Q: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning? A: Did you actually pass the bar exam?

Q: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?

Q: Were you present when your picture was taken?

Q: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th? A: Yes. Q: And what were you doing at that time?

Q: She had three children, right? A: Yes. Q: How many were boys? A: None. Q: Were there any girls?

Q: How was your first marriage terminated? A: By death. Q: And by whose death was it terminated?

Q: Can you describe the individual? A: He was about medium height and had a beard. Q: Was this a male, or a female?

Q: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney? A: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.

Q: Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people? A: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.

Q: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to? A: Oral.

Q: Do you recall the time that you examined the body? A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m. Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time? A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy.

Q: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?

Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse? A: No. Q: Did you check for blood pressure? A: No. Q: Did you check for breathing? A: No. Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy? A: No. Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor? A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar. Q: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless? A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.

www.funny.com

[Wearing A Halo]

These are from a book called "Disorder in the American Courts." They are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters who endured the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place.

Q: Are you sexually active? A: No, I just lie there.

Q: What is your date of birth? A: July 15th. Q: What year? A: Every year.

Q: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact? A: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.

Q: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all? A: Yes. Q: And in what ways does it affect your memory? A: I forget. Q: You forget? Can you give us an example of something that you've forgotten?

Q: How old is your son, the one living with you? A: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which. Q: How long has he lived with you? A: Forty-five years.

Q: What was the first thing your husband said to you when he woke up that morning? A: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?" Q: And why did that upset you? A: My name is Susan.

Q: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo or the occult? A: We both do. Q: Voodoo? A: We do. Q: You do? A: Yes, voodoo.

Q: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning? A: Did you actually pass the bar exam?

Q: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?

Q: Were you present when your picture was taken?

Q: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th? A: Yes. Q: And what were you doing at that time?

Q: She had three children, right? A: Yes. Q: How many were boys? A: None. Q: Were there any girls?

Q: How was your first marriage terminated? A: By death. Q: And by whose death was it terminated?

Q: Can you describe the individual? A: He was about medium height and had a beard. Q: Was this a male, or a female?

Q: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney? A: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.

Q: Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people? A: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.

Q: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to? A: Oral.

Q: Do you recall the time that you examined the body? A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m. Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time? A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy.

Q: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?

Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse? A: No. Q: Did you check for blood pressure? A: No. Q: Did you check for breathing? A: No. Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy? A: No. Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor? A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar. Q: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless? A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.

www.funny.com

:biggrin: :beer: :biggrin:

[accordn2me]

JMO...on the Evidence that Points to Innocence thread, post #983, you wrote: "IF Geragos, Wecht & Lee knew their sworn testimony during cross-examination could greatly harm the defense case, then Geragos did not make a huge mistake by not calling them, IMO. ( i.e. Lee would be asked about other cases he testified in where strangulation/smothering was the manner of death & evidence collected, IMO i.e. Wecht would be asked about his own findings which in many ways, likely concurred with those of the ME, IMO) And, statements both of them made about the case on television ( which supported the State's case or the integrity/experience/testimony of the ME) could have come into evidence as well, IMO. I think Wecht & Lee were hired to opine in favor of the defense team on television, nothing more, JMO.
I think the verdict was just. I think it is possible a higher court may find ineffective counsel in the penalty phase, which could result in reversal of death sentence, IMO. I think it is much less likely the verdict will be over-turned by a higher court ( Judge Delucchi has only been reversed once in his long career, I think he knows the law and ruled accordingly) JMO
But, that petri dish was created, there are possibilities, IMO."

Would you mind elaborating on what you mean about ineffective counsel in the penalty phase?

I'm also curious about the case that JD was reversed on. Is there a link I could look up?

Thank you in advance. You, enlightenme, and SamCat, et al...seem to have such a good understanding of this case and the legalities of it. I'm enjoying your posts and learning a lot. :rose:

[JustMyOpinion]

Would you mind elaborating on what you mean about ineffective counsel in the penalty phase?

I'm also curious about the case that JD was reversed on. Is there a link I could look up?

Thank you in advance. You, enlightenme, and SamCat, et al...seem to have such a good understanding of this case and the legalities of it. I'm enjoying your posts and learning a lot. :rose:

Hi A2M,
Despite the fact that MG would not submit a witness list for a possible penalty phase prior to verdict ( and the judge warning him of the consequences to his client,) and the fact that Judge D allowed time for Defense to prepare for the phase once a verdict of guilt was reached,MG admitted to the jury, on the record in open court that he did not prepare. It is possible that the additional preparation time the judge allowed & 39 witnesses( IIRC) Defense brought will negate a finding for ineffective counsel in penalty phase, even though Geragos tried to establish he did not prepare. JMO This may be just a futile attempt Geragos made to establish a valid issue, but there's possibility, IMO.
I haven't found reference citing the actual case where Judge D was reversed. Here is a link to an interesting interview/article about Judge D.
http://www.scu.edu/etal/fall2005/judge.cfm

[enlightenme]

JMO...on the Evidence that Points to Innocence thread, post #983, you wrote: "IF Geragos, Wecht & Lee knew their sworn testimony during cross-examination could greatly harm the defense case, then Geragos did not make a huge mistake by not calling them, IMO. ( i.e. Lee would be asked about other cases he testified in where strangulation/smothering was the manner of death & evidence collected, IMO i.e. Wecht would be asked about his own findings which in many ways, likely concurred with those of the ME, IMO) And, statements both of them made about the case on television ( which supported the State's case or the integrity/experience/testimony of the ME) could have come into evidence as well, IMO. I think Wecht & Lee were hired to opine in favor of the defense team on television, nothing more, JMO.
I think the verdict was just. I think it is possible a higher court may find ineffective counsel in the penalty phase, which could result in reversal of death sentence, IMO. I think it is much less likely the verdict will be over-turned by a higher court ( Judge Delucchi has only been reversed once in his long career, I think he knows the law and ruled accordingly) JMO
But, that petri dish was created, there are possibilities, IMO."

Would you mind elaborating on what you mean about ineffective counsel in the penalty phase?

I'm also curious about the case that JD was reversed on. Is there a link I could look up?

Thank you in advance. You, enlightenme, and SamCat, et al...seem to have such a good understanding of this case and the legalities of it. I'm enjoying your posts and learning a lot. :rose:


Regarding ineffective counsel in the penalty phase, I believe some think Geragos saying he wasn't prepared for the penalty phase because he thought there would be an aquittal (yeah, right!) will be grounds for ineffective counsel. I think Judge Delucchi took care of that issue by giving Geragos 2 weeks to get prepared.

I haven't found a link yet, but the case Judge Delucchi ruled on that got reversed had to do with him not including manslaughter as a jury choice. I think, either that or is WAS including manslaughter when he shouldn't have. Anyway, not a glaring error on Judge D.'s part, IMO.

[TuscanDreams]

Yep. I know for a fact that Geragos did not contact at least some of the people that testified for Scott until AFTER the verdict, and after a good deal of the extra time given had passed.

I can't provide backup for this as it was a conversation with a couple of them, so if you don't believe me then this is just my opinion. So there.

Adnoid, I'm sure you understand how difficult it is to take a converstation that you had with persons at face value. Who did you speak with, if you could state this.

[enlightenme]

Yep. I know for a fact that Geragos did not contact at least some of the people that testified for Scott until AFTER the verdict, and after a good deal of the extra time given had passed.

I can't provide backup for this as it was a conversation with a couple of them, so if you don't believe me then this is just my opinion. So there.


Oh, I believe you Adnoid, link or no link or backup. I trust you more than anonymous airchair "experts" on this case! ;)


JMO

[TuscanDreams]

Yes, I do understand. That's why I included the disclaimer.

Two of my family members were called as witnesses by the defense. The conversations I refer to were private and therefore not testimony, so I cannot back them up in an independently verifiable manner.

Thank you for the info, I appreciate it. I understand about confidential conversations.

[accordn2me]

I feel that Mark felt certain he would win the case. He should have called a few of the witnesses and why he didn't is beneath me.

He addressed a lot of stuff in his opening statement.

His opening staement was better than his cross on the prosecutors witnesses.

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Timelines/Trial%20Transcripts/Trial%20Geragos%20OS.htmYep.

10 characters:shrug:

[Otter]

Bumping this thread because MG is on Fox right now pontificating about something. Maybe he should be added to the common ground thread in regard to not living up to his own hype.

IIRC, MG approached the P's. Even after saying what he said on national tv, does anyone have an opinion as to why he was hired? And for the reputed $million.

After watching him "in action" only once with the Winona Ryder trial, I considered him the classic shyster. Poor girl ended up with a felony conviction instead of a misdemeanor due to his unique lawyering technique. I'd rely on a public defender as opposed to him, but that's just me.

So .... any thoughts as to why he was hired in the first place?

Charisma? Slick? Its a mystery to me.

[accordn2me]

Bumping this thread because MG is on Fox right now pontificating about something. Maybe he should be added to the common ground thread in regard to not living up to his own hype.

IIRC, MG approached the P's. Even after saying what he said on national tv, does anyone have an opinion as to why he was hired? And for the reputed $million.

After watching him "in action" only once with the Winona Ryder trial, I considered him the classic shyster. Poor girl ended up with a felony conviction instead of a misdemeanor due to his unique lawyering technique. I'd rely on a public defender as opposed to him, but that's just me.

So .... any thoughts as to why he was hired in the first place?

Charisma? Slick? Its a mystery to me.Remove the aluminum foil body beanie....maybe it will come to you then, Otter. :P

[accordn2me]

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8848366&postcount=857

Would anyone care to opine about things MG could have done, but didn't, in Scott's defense?

[One2Snoop]

I've never seen this article before but thought it was interesting.....


Mark Geragos Is The Main Reason Scott Peterson Lost His Case
6/08/05:

On Monday night Mark Geragos appeared on CNN’s Larry King Live. To say that the interview was nothing short of a self serving platform for Mark Geragos to try and regain his credibility would be an understatement. Larry King, who is a good friend of Geragos’, gave him the "soft glove" treatment, and didn’t ask any of the tough questions. Snip - more at the link.....

http://www.s5000.com/what_the_huck/855/mark_geragos_scott_peterson.php

[deputydi]

Jackie Peterson was present for the verdict, but my feeling about Geragos and his role differs from my expectations of Scott's family members. This was the verdict Geragos helped earn for his client, standing up to face it with him was an essential part of his professional job, IMO. I don't care if his ego was bruised and he couldn't enter that courtroom with his typical arrogant, boastful, bullying swagger! Stand up next to your client & take the defeat! Your client is now facing a LWOP or death sentence, represent HIM.
This was probably the only time during the trial and its aftermath that I felt sorry for Jackie. She had to sit in the courtroom and hear her son pronounced guilty all alone.

Geragos should be ashamed of himself for not being beside his client when the verdict was announced. His excuse was he had another court date. No judge on the face of the earth would have denied him a continuance to be with a client who was facing a death penalty.

[deputydi]

Regarding ineffective counsel in the penalty phase, I believe some think Geragos saying he wasn't prepared for the penalty phase because he thought there would be an aquittal (yeah, right!) will be grounds for ineffective counsel. I think Judge Delucchi took care of that issue by giving Geragos 2 weeks to get prepared.

I haven't found a link yet, but the case Judge Delucchi ruled on that got reversed had to do with him not including manslaughter as a jury choice. I think, either that or is WAS including manslaughter when he shouldn't have. Anyway, not a glaring error on Judge D.'s part, IMO.
Ineffective assistance of counsel rarely succeeds on appeal. You practically have to have video of the defense attorney sleeping or coming to court drunk. I don't believe its going to fly in this case. I think Geragos knew he was losing and was hanging his hat on the appeals court. He wasn't prepared because he planned it that way. He may be a lot of things, but he's not stupid.

[accordn2me]

I've never seen this article before but thought it was interesting.....


Mark Geragos Is The Main Reason Scott Peterson Lost His Case
6/08/05:

On Monday night Mark Geragos appeared on CNN’s Larry King Live. To say that the interview was nothing short of a self serving platform for Mark Geragos to try and regain his credibility would be an understatement. Larry King, who is a good friend of Geragos’, gave him the "soft glove" treatment, and didn’t ask any of the tough questions. Snip - more at the link.....

http://www.s5000.com/what_the_huck/855/mark_geragos_scott_peterson.phpMG lost the case because Scott Peterson is guilty of murdering his wife and unborn son. I want to see some ideas of what he could have/should have done.

[deputydi]

MG lost the case because Scott Peterson is guilty of murdering his wife and unborn son. I want to see some ideas of what he could have/should have done.
You are direct and to the point and I totally agree. Thanks for wrapping it up very neatly.

[Otter]

Interesting thoughts. DD, couldn't agree more with you, which poses the question of his ethics or the lack thereof.

Last I looked, his case still links to MG and raising money for an "investigation" (paypal accepted).

A2m -- he promised so much, not as much once he got into court, but still promised to prove SP's innocence, why do you think he didn't call Dr.'s Lee and Baden?

MOO, they couldn't or wouldn't put up. They folded. Some people may have had some integrity on that team.

I'd love to hear what Winona Ryder has to say about MG.

[JustMyOpinion]

MG lost the case because Scott Peterson is guilty of murdering his wife and unborn son. I want to see some ideas of what he could have/should have done.

First, I will say that I don't like Mark Geragos, and I personally think some of his tactics, strategies and conduct after taking this case were deplorable. JMO
Second, I think he did a good job with winning change of venue, voir dire, filing various motions, arguing evidentiary motions, and cross examination & seeking expert opinions/hiring private detectives, etc. JMO
Third, he had no provable facts on his side, IMO. His trial strategy seemed to be geared toward winning a mis-trial ( earlier than later, IMO), I can't imagine any other reason for his opening where he made unnecessary promises he had to know he couldn't keep. JMO
Fourth, I think Scott would have been better-served by an attorney experienced in trying capital cases with an established track-record of winning some of those. JMO For Geragos to admit he didn't prepare for a penalty phase proves he didn't order a mitigation investigation from the outset.. a huge failure, IMO.
Fifth, Instead of making grandiose promises in his opening and trying to cast suspicion on transients or burlgars, trying to paint the police as villians.. I think Geragos would have been wiser to pursue a trial strategy from start to finish geared toward simple, reasonable doubt.
JMO

[Otter]

First, I will say that I don't like Mark Geragos, and I personally think some of his tactics, strategies and conduct after taking this case were deplorable. JMO
Second, I think he did a good job with winning change of venue, voir dire, filing various motions, arguing evidentiary motions, and cross examination & seeking expert opinions/hiring private detectives, etc. JMO
Third, he had no provable facts on his side, IMO. His trial strategy seemed to be geared toward winning a mis-trial ( earlier than later, IMO), I can't imagine any other reason for his opening where he made unnecessary promises he had to know he couldn't keep. JMO
Fourth, I think Scott would have been better-served by an attorney experienced in trying capital cases with an established track-record of winning some of those. JMO For Geragos to admit he didn't prepare for a penalty phase proves he didn't order a mitigation investigation from the outset.. a huge failure, IMO.
Fifth, Instead of making grandiose promises in his opening and trying to cast suspicion on transients or burlgars, trying to paint the police as villians.. I think Geragos would have been wiser to pursue a trial strategy from start to finish geared toward simple, reasonable doubt.
JMO

Hi JMO! Very well laid out! Even the NG's couldn't disagree, IMO.

Grandiose promises ... why I kept bringing up Ryder. The man kept waving a piece of paper that resembled a receipt in front of the jury. At the end, it was just a piece of paper.

He tries to fool people. He succeeds sometimes, but not where it counts. Most of the NG's here seem not to have paid the slightest bit of attention to him, relying on their own intellect as opposed to circus side show.

Where was Lee and Baden? I know they were cooling there heels, but did the P's get a refund?

Naaaah. :)

[accordn2me]

First, I will say that I don't like Mark Geragos, and I personally think some of his tactics, strategies and conduct after taking this case were deplorable. JMO
Second, I think he did a good job with winning change of venue, voir dire, filing various motions, arguing evidentiary motions, and cross examination & seeking expert opinions/hiring private detectives, etc. JMO
Third, he had no provable facts on his side, IMO. His trial strategy seemed to be geared toward winning a mis-trial ( earlier than later, IMO), I can't imagine any other reason for his opening where he made unnecessary promises he had to know he couldn't keep. JMO
Fourth, I think Scott would have been better-served by an attorney experienced in trying capital cases with an established track-record of winning some of those. JMO For Geragos to admit he didn't prepare for a penalty phase proves he didn't order a mitigation investigation from the outset.. a huge failure, IMO.
Fifth, Instead of making grandiose promises in his opening and trying to cast suspicion on transients or burlgars, trying to paint the police as villians.. I think Geragos would have been wiser to pursue a trial strategy from start to finish geared toward simple, reasonable doubt.
JMOIf you could be more specific, tia.

But to order a mitigation investigation from the outset....hmmm...wouldn't that be akin to admitting defeat, more or less? And it certainly wouldn't have looked good in light of his earlier comments on Scott's guilt before he was retained as defense counsel.

[deputydi]

<snip>Where was Lee and Baden? I know they were cooling there heels, but did the P's get a refund?

Naaaah. :)
It was Lee and Wecht and I would really like to know why neither man was called to testify. I found that one of the more interesting non-happenings. My THEORY (and it was only MOO) was that he hired these men just so they wouldn't be able to testify for the pros. He knew what they had to say would not help the defense and he never intended to call them as witnesses. I asked but never got any reliable answer -- can an expert witness who has been hired and paid by one side turn around and testify for the other?

You are right about his grandiose promises on the courthouse steps hurting his case. He made claims about "proving Scott factually innocent" which everyone following this case waited to hear. Of course it never materialized.

His entire defense puzzled me. Where were the eyewitnesses he had relied on? Could it be that he finally put their timeline together and realized that it would have been impossible for each of them to have seen Laci at the time they claimed to have seen her.

[JustMyOpinion]

Hi JMO! Very well laid out! Even the NG's couldn't disagree, IMO.

Grandiose promises ... why I kept bringing up Ryder. The man kept waving a piece of paper that resembled a receipt in front of the jury. At the end, it was just a piece of paper.

He tries to fool people. He succeeds sometimes, but not where it counts. Most of the NG's here seem not to have paid the slightest bit of attention to him, relying on their own intellect as opposed to circus side show.

Where was Lee and Baden? I know they were cooling there heels, but did the P's get a refund?

Naaaah. :)

Yeah, waving that paper claiming it was a receipt in a trial where his client could have plead to a misdemeanor seemed ridiculous, but I can't even think of a word to categorize this type of strategy in a trial where the client is facing conviction on double homicide and possible execution! JMO I agree with you that it's highly doubtful the Petersons got any refunds ( or..the People, since it was reported Geragos received funds from the county mid-way through trial to pay for experts) Where were these experts ( i.e. Lee or Wecht) when it came to testifying, indeed..!
I remember the trial consultant for the State said he looked for jurors who were analytical, capable of piecing together circumstantial evidence ( paraphrasing). IMO, Dimitrius & Geragos were looking for jurors who would react in a more emotional way, who they felt mis-trusted authority, and would be easily convinced by a smoke & mirrors presentation..JMO

[Otter]

It was Lee and Wecht and I would really like to know why neither man was called to testify. I found that one of the more interesting non-happenings. My THEORY (and it was only MOO) was that he hired these men just so they wouldn't be able to testify for the pros. He knew what they had to say would not help the defense and he never intended to call them as witnesses. I asked but never got any reliable answer -- can an expert witness who has been hired and paid by one side turn around and testify for the other?

You are right about his grandiose promises on the courthouse steps hurting his case. He made claims about "proving Scott factually innocent" which everyone following this case waited to hear. Of course it never materialized.

His entire defense puzzled me. Where were the eyewitnesses he had relied on? Could it be that he finally put their time line together and realized that it would have been impossible for each of them to have seen Laci at the time they claimed to have seen her.

Baden -- Wecht. Thanks for the correction. The namesallruntogether!

IIRC, the OJ pros hired some big shot to shut him up, as the def hired Alan Dirshorwitz (sp) for the same reason.

Such a game. Its very sad, since SP's supporters have the corruption mantra going on, but have a plank in their own eyes. Where's the truth, but I'm naive or too honest for my own good.

What was the point of the boat in the parking lot? It backfired big time, but seriously, what was MG thinking? UGH!

[JustMyOpinion]

If you could be more specific, tia.

But to order a mitigation investigation from the outset....hmmm...wouldn't that be akin to admitting defeat, more or less? And it certainly wouldn't have looked good in light of his earlier comments on Scott's guilt before he was retained as defense counsel.

Hi A2M..
Some of the things I felt were deplorable:
Parking the boat/dummy on his property which was located very near the courthouse to encourage a public demonstration/spectacle, IMO
Failing to wait for a verdict in RWC, failing to stand with his client as the verdict was read.
Promising the jury to prove him stone, cold innocent ( when this is completely unnecessary, grandiose)
Leaking select portions of Conner's autopsy to media prior to the victims having any access to the full report.. and promoting the whole "satanic cult theory".. JMO
As for a mitigation investigation, my research shows that attorneys experienced in trying capital cases start a mitigation investigation from the outset of taking on the case ( these are exhaustive, require a great deal of research/interviewing, take months to complete). It's not "admitting defeat", IMO,, it's proper preparation in a capital case.. JMO

[Otter]

Yeah, waving that paper claiming it was a receipt in a trial where his client could have plead to a misdemeanor seemed ridiculous, but I can't even think of a word to categorize this type of strategy in a trial where the client is facing conviction on double homicide and possible execution! JMO I agree with you that it's highly doubtful the Petersons got any refunds ( or..the People, since it was reported Geragos received funds from the county mid-way through trial to pay for experts) Where were these experts ( i.e. Lee or Wecht) when it came to testifying, indeed..!
I remember the trial consultant for the State said he looked for jurors who were analytical, capable of piecing together circumstantial evidence ( paraphrasing). IMO, Dimitrius & Geragos were looking for jurors who would react in a more emotional way, who they felt mis-trusted authority, and would be easily convinced by a smoke & mirrors presentation..JMO

So, the NG's got exactly what they were asking for? Which brings to mind the phrase to be careful what you ask for because it could come back to bite you in the butt?.

You know, its not that there's a winner or loser. Nobody won. Its a tragedy. Too many lives lost. :-(

[deputydi]

<snip>What was the point of the boat in the parking lot? It backfired big time, but seriously, what was MG thinking? UGH!
I have no idea what the point was. All he managed to do was add fuel to an already red-hot fire. It disgusted a lot of people who were trying to remain objective. After that hideous display of insensitivity, more people began to realize how desperate the defense had to be.

[JustMyOpinion]

You know, its not that there's a winner or loser. Nobody won. Its a tragedy. Too many lives lost. :-(

I agree, nobody won, this was a tragedy for so many.. but justice was served, IMO.

[accordn2me]

Hi A2M..
Some of the things I felt were deplorable:
Parking the boat/dummy on his property which was located very near the courthouse to encourage a public demonstration/spectacle, IMO
Failing to wait for a verdict in RWC, failing to stand with his client as the verdict was read.
Promising the jury to prove him stone, cold innocent ( when this is completely unnecessary, grandiose)
Leaking select portions of Conner's autopsy to media prior to the victims having any access to the full report.. and promoting the whole "satanic cult theory".. JMO
As for a mitigation investigation, my research shows that attorneys experienced in trying capital cases start a mitigation investigation from the outset of taking on the case ( these are exhaustive, require a great deal of research/interviewing, take months to complete). It's not "admitting defeat", IMO,, it's proper preparation in a capital case.. JMOGood post! All these things are deplorable, imo2.

Now....like the question I posed about "strong defense witnesses" we'll wait and see if anyone, I'm especially curious about the SIIs who claim MG could've/should've done better, will post what they believe he did/didn't do or could've/should've done.............tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock........:shrug:

JMO........you were always the first one in class to turn in your assignments, weren't you?:hat:

[accordn2me]

Read this from that article you posted on the 'wrongfully convicted' thread:

"Outside court, Peterson's sister-in-law, Janey, responded to speculation that the defense might not call any witnesses in its case. Judge Alfred Delucchi previously told jurors to expect two to three weeks of testimony from defense witnesses. The prosecution could rest as early as next week.

"I think the fact that people are even discussing that indicates just how poor the prosecution case is. It just points out that there is no evidence," Janey Peterson said as she escorted her mother and father-in-law to their car."

Now that sounds 2me like the Petersons would have been just fine with a defense strategy of resting right after the state rested on the basis of "they don't have a case/evidence." If I'm not mistaken....this strategy rarely works. The one murder case I sat through, start to finish, the defendant was found guilty of manslaughter and not second degree murder as he was charged. I guess you could call that a win......:flamemad:

[Anne2719]

. . . I asked but never got any reliable answer -- can an expert witness who has been hired and paid by one side turn around and testify for the other? . . .

I'm pretty sure that they can, but (1) they'd kind of be screwing the pooch career-wise, and (2) the other side would have to be wary, since the expert has been looking at the situation through possibly biased eyes.

I've thought for a long time that expert witnesses should be hired through the court and not told who is paying them until after the trial is over and they get their checks.

[accordn2me]

I'm pretty sure that they can, but (1) they'd kind of be screwing the pooch career-wise, and (2) the other side would have to be wary, since the expert has been looking at the situation through possibly biased eyes.

I've thought for a long time that expert witnesses should be hired through the court and not told who is paying them until after the trial is over and they get their checks.What a great idea, Anne. And they should all get paid the same going rate (decided by the court).

[JustMyOpinion]

I'm pretty sure that they can, but (1) they'd kind of be screwing the pooch career-wise, and (2) the other side would have to be wary, since the expert has been looking at the situation through possibly biased eyes.

I've thought for a long time that expert witnesses should be hired through the court and not told who is paying them until after the trial is over and they get their checks.

This is a great idea, IMO. In Peterson.. I don't consider the ME or the criminalist or those that actually conducted the dog searches "expert witnesses". But the forensic anthropologist, hydrologist, petographers, boat expert, expert fisherman etc..were, IMO.

[Anne2719]

I've just thought it would give a much better chance of testimony that actually means something. I'm so sick of Wecht, Lee, and Baden, who strike me as prostituting themselves. It would be great to have some integrity shown by expert witnesses. My opinion, of course.

[One2Snoop]

I've just thought it would give a much better chance of testimony that actually means something. I'm so sick of Wecht, Lee, and Baden, who strike me as prostituting themselves. It would be great to have some integrity shown by expert witnesses. My opinion, of course.

Great Idea! I wonder if the court system would ever be agreeable to such an arrangement? And I agree with you about Wecht, Lee and Baden.

[One2Snoop]

This is an excellent idea Anne. Wonder why they don't do it? One thing they do have is expert witness "wh*res" who will testify to anything they are hired to say. And, yes, that is what they are called. Disgusting, eh?

And people wonder why there's so many cases on appeal. Although, I don't believe this applies to the Peterson case. JMO of course.

Edited to add - I think the only person responsible for ineffective counsel in this case is MG. JMO

[Otter]

Wecht and Lee are far more careful than the bunch the prosecution used. They state what they can prove, and where they aren't sure they say so. All too many of the prosecution's 'experts' seem to have been happy to say anything and pretend expertise they didn't possess (IMO).

I'd like to see some penalties for 'experts' who are blatantly wrong, not just for the ones who have been proven to be crooks and perjurers.

Sometimes they get banned from message boards! :eek:

[deputydi]

I'm pretty sure that they can, but (1) they'd kind of be screwing the pooch career-wise, and (2) the other side would have to be wary, since the expert has been looking at the situation through possibly biased eyes.

I've thought for a long time that expert witnesses should be hired through the court and not told who is paying them until after the trial is over and they get their checks.
I guess expert witnesses are useful for some things, but I rarely pay attention to their testimony. Each side uses them and no one expects an expert paid for by the defense to willingly testify to facts that will help the pros. To me their testimony is almost meaningless.

[deputydi]

I agree, and let's start with Drs. Wecht and Lee. Are you familiar with the Michael Peterson case and Wecht & Lee's "analysis" of the blood splatter? Wonder how much they were paid to come up with such a ridiculous theory. And, regarding Dr.Wecht's credibility: High-profile Allegheny county coroner Cyril Wecht has been indicted on 84 counts of mail fraud, wire fraud and related offenses arising from his alleged use of government resources to benefit his private practice.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/01/20/765/95140
That comical blood spatter analysis was Dr Lee's baby -- not Cyril Wecht's. Don't be real quick to pre-judge Dr Wecht's indictment. I've posted over and over that these allegations were politically motivated and, I believe, totally unfounded. He hasn't had his day in court yet. Identical charges were brought against him many years ago and he was acquitted on every single count. I believe he will be exonerated this time also.

[accordn2me]

That comical blood spatter analysis was Dr Lee's baby -- not Cyril Wecht's. Don't be real quick to pre-judge Dr Wecht's indictment. I've posted over and over that these allegations were politically motivated and, I believe, totally unfounded. He hasn't had his day in court yet. Identical charges were brought against him many years ago and he was acquitted on every single count. I believe he will be exonerated this time also.He must not have retained Geragos....? :lol:

[Anne2719]

I think Geragos is an easy scapegoat, but the truth (as I see it) is he did what he could with a dog of a case. I'm guessing that he didn't call certain witnesses because they would have hurt the defendant even more under cross-examination. And the "exonerating evidence" could not have held up under close scrutiny, IMO.

[enlightenme]

Wecht and Lee are far more careful than the bunch the prosecution used. They state what they can prove, and where they aren't sure they say so. All too many of the prosecution's 'experts' seem to have been happy to say anything and pretend expertise they didn't possess (IMO).

I'd like to see some penalties for 'experts' who are blatantly wrong, not just for the ones who have been proven to be crooks and perjurers.

Please provide some example of this!

[accordn2me]

And that's why I asked. It's easy to just say "MG did a bad job", but the alternative is he did the best that could be done with the facts he had. I think the truth is somewhere between the extremes, but closer to him doing the best he could. None the less, I'd like to hear - in detail - where people think he dropped the ball, and what he should have done. And I'd like to discuss there points.What a good idea!

[accordn2me]

I second this. When asked why didn't MG call this witness or that, why didn't he have so-and-so testify, well.........obviously it wouldn't help his client. If there was a new trial, it'd be no different.

If anyone out there knew ANYTHING that could set ISP free, they'd be on all the talk shows, the P's website, etc. It isn't happening, because there's nobody "out there" that can add anything new in favor of ISP.

Aside from that, where I think MG went wrong was: He agreed to take the case. :patriot:
Agreed to take the case! I heard he went looking for it!

[thinkaboutit]

I second this. When asked why didn't MG call this witness or that, why didn't he have so-and-so testify, well.........obviously it wouldn't help his client. If there was a new trial, it'd be no different.

If anyone out there knew ANYTHING that could set ISP free, they'd be on all the talk shows, the P's website, etc. It isn't happening, because there's nobody "out there" that can add anything new in favor of ISP.

Aside from that, where I think MG went wrong was: He agreed to take the case. :patriot:

With all due respect....you are so wrong about this TopGunner, IMO. Any new evidence would not help SP by going to the media with it. New evidence is not even going to get SP a new trial in California - to my knowledge (short of Laci's head being found in someone's trunk or a confession by someone else - and I think we all agree [for different reasons obviously] - nothing like that is going to happen). Any new evidence will be kept confidential - until SP wins an appeal and a new trial - and it will be presented then. The appeal system is a long slow process - even if someone else confessed - they would not immediately open the doors and let SP walk out. The Petersons certainly wouldn't announce this new evidence - they'll keep it close and keep it as a surprise (just like the boat! ;) )

[enlightenme]

I second this. When asked why didn't MG call this witness or that, why didn't he have so-and-so testify, well.........obviously it wouldn't help his client. If there was a new trial, it'd be no different.

If anyone out there knew ANYTHING that could set ISP free, they'd be on all the talk shows, the P's website, etc. It isn't happening, because there's nobody "out there" that can add anything new in favor of ISP.

Aside from that, where I think MG went wrong was: He agreed to take the case. :patriot:

Scott knows better than anyone that the "real killers" or any true exonerating evidence will never be found. He has to keep stringing those few supporters along though. After all, they are helping to pay for his appeals and his prison commissary account.

JMO

[thinkaboutit]

I had no idea where to put this, but here goes:


http://cbs2.com/local/local_story_121203226.html

TopGunner - do you think it would be a good idea to start a thread specifically for these types of articles people would like to see?

[Anne2719]

TopGunner - do you think it would be a good idea to start a thread specifically for these types of articles people would like to see?
I think that's a very good idea.

[accordn2me]

Well! I think it would be a good idea to start a list of things the defense could've/should've done to defend Scott Lee Peterson against the charge of capital murder. But do we have one? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO:no:

[Hey Paula]

Well! I think it would be a good idea to start a list of things the defense could've/should've done to defend Scott Lee Peterson against the charge of capital murder. But do we have one? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO:no:

I think a list could be comprised of things the Def should not have done when defending Scott Peterson.

IMO

[One2Snoop]

ITA Sun. We've been hearing about new evidence/information, "secrets", etc. forEVER. If there was any truth to this, it'd be NO secret. The P's would be screaming FOUL from the rooftops - no way in h*ll would they "wait" until MAYBE a new trial.

If it were MY son on DR, and new evidence was found that could even remotely set him free, I'm be naked, screaming it, from` the roof top of ABC TV in LA until I was heard.

I can't be convinced that there's ANYTHING new out there except empty promises and theories that'll end up right where all the witnesses that saw Laci walking McKenzie ended up. THE ABYSS :rolleyes:

:eek: Oh my what a visual - LOL! I agree, why haven't we heard anything about this new evidence? What could it possibly be, I wonder? :shrug:

[Wearing A Halo]

With all due respect....you are so wrong about this TopGunner, IMO. Any new evidence would not help SP by going to the media with it. New evidence is not even going to get SP a new trial in California - to my knowledge (short of Laci's head being found in someone's trunk or a confession by someone else - and I think we all agree [for different reasons obviously] - nothing like that is going to happen). Any new evidence will be kept confidential - until SP wins an appeal and a new trial - and it will be presented then. The appeal system is a long slow process - even if someone else confessed - they would not immediately open the doors and let SP walk out. The Petersons certainly wouldn't announce this new evidence - they'll keep it close and keep it as a surprise (just like the boat! ;) )

Well then they better hurry up with it because the Ps never know what unfortunate, unforseen, tragic, accident may come to DRISP and all the Ps would have to say then is, "Oh Damn, we should have come out with this new evidence sooner and now poor Scott (aka DRISP) is gone and he never got to leave his cell. [And] now what are we going to do?"

(just another boo-hoo moment)

[Wearing A Halo]

Or, quite possibly Halo, nothing will happen and they'll say "look how rested he is, thank GOD we waited!!!" :tongue:

:biggrin: ROFLMAO :biggrin:

[cookiewench]

With all due respect....you are so wrong about this TopGunner, IMO. Any new evidence would not help SP by going to the media with it. New evidence is not even going to get SP a new trial in California - to my knowledge (short of Laci's head being found in someone's trunk or a confession by someone else - and I think we all agree [for different reasons obviously] - nothing like that is going to happen). Any new evidence will be kept confidential - until SP wins an appeal and a new trial - and it will be presented then. The appeal system is a long slow process - even if someone else confessed - they would not immediately open the doors and let SP walk out. The Petersons certainly wouldn't announce this new evidence - they'll keep it close and keep it as a surprise (just like the boat! ;) )


This is not making sense to me.

Why would they keep this "new evidence" secret, when they have a website that is filled with their attempts to disprove the OLD evidence?

They obviously care about public opinion, and want to influence public opinion. The more people who can be convinced now that he's innocent, the better chance they'll have with a new jury pool in the (ahem...supposed) next trial.

The twists and turns and spins they are doing with the old evidence on their site shows us that they believe that public opinion in their favor is their most important asset.

There would be nothing favorable to them, legally, in keeping any new evidence under their hats.

The only reason I can see in them keeping it a secret is that it's not really "evidence" at all, and they don't want anyone digging around in advance and disproving it.

[Rachel Cory]

This is not making sense to me.

Why would they keep this "new evidence" secret, when they have a website that is filled with their attempts to disprove the OLD evidence?

They obviously care about public opinion, and want to influence public opinion. The more people who can be convinced now that he's innocent, the better chance they'll have with a new jury pool in the (ahem...supposed) next trial.

The twists and turns and spins they are doing with the old evidence on their site shows us that they believe that public opinion in their favor is their most important asset.

There would be nothing favorable to them, legally, in keeping any new evidence under their hats.

The only reason I can see in them keeping it a secret is that it's not really "evidence" at all, and they don't want anyone digging around in advance and disproving it.

I'd say they probably don't want CTV, CNN, Fox News, Headline News, Greta van Susteren, or Nancy Grace to have an opportunity to "comment" on it.
Thank you.

[cookiewench]

And? Evidence is evidence, and a TV reporter commenting on it isn't going to change it.


The P's certainly don't seem to be worried about anyone making comments on all the other work they've done, trying to refute the old evidence, on their website.

Why do you think they are doing this? It can only be for the public, correct? To have an affect on the public's thinking and the public's beliefs about this case.

Why do all that work trying to disprove the old evidence, but keep the "new" evidence secret?

If the reason is that making the "new evidence" public won't help Scott, what is the point of his entire website, then?

[accordn2me]

When a person is murdered, "the evidence" is what it is. It's all there. The question is...is it discovered or undiscovered?

The problem for Scott Peterson.....there is no way any DNA evidence could be discovered in his favor (if there were any).

Gs...for the sake of entertainment....say Scott were not the perp....how could he be proven innocent.....a confession........HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
forget that...what else? the watch....no, adnoid has a perfectly reasonable explanation for that......the burglars........cleared.......the twine.......explained.....ineffective counsel....WHERE'S THE LIST OF COULD'VE/SHOULD'VE........ain't gonna happen......

SIIs.....remember, the burden of proof has shifted it's no longer: "innocent until proven guilty." Scott has been proven guilty. And if I'm not mistaken....the reverse is much more difficult..........

[deputydi]

When a person is murdered, "the evidence" is what it is. It's all there. The question is...is it discovered or undiscovered?

The problem for Scott Peterson.....there is no way any DNA evidence could be discovered in his favor (if there were any).

Gs...for the sake of entertainment....say Scott were not the perp....how could he be proven innocent.....a confession........HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
forget that...what else? the watch....no, adnoid has a perfectly reasonable explanation for that......the burglars........cleared.......the twine.......explained.....ineffective counsel....WHERE'S THE LIST OF COULD'VE/SHOULD'VE........ain't gonna happen......

SIIs.....remember, the burden of proof has shifted it's no longer: "innocent until proven guilty." Scott has been proven guilty. And if I'm not mistaken....the reverse is much more difficult..........
IMO the lack of physical evidence points to Scott also. A stranger in that house would have left something behind. A hair, a fingerprint -- SOMETHING. The fact that none was found is just one more reason that I believe NO stranger was in that home.

The appeals court (and remember, this is the very liberal 9th circuit) will have to find some trial error that could have changed the outcome. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I will throw up if I hear the term "petrie dish" again. LOL. Scott has been convicted, and you are right -- he no longer has the privilege of being "presumed innocent".

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is probably the most common appeals issue raised and it rarely succeeds. It definitely won't this time either (IMO).

[thinkaboutit]

IMO, to keep any new evidence that would exonerate DRISP a "secret" until/IF he wins a new trial is utterly foolish and smacks of conduct considered to be legal malpractice. What if he doesn't get a new trial on appeal? If this new evidence can supposedly clear him, it is indeed a grave injustice for his attorney not to present a motion for post trial discovery of evidence. I believe there is also a time period for any post discovery evidence to be presented. If this evidence was known during the trial and not presented, clearly this would be considered malpractice. Given the above, I find it more than difficult to believe there is any exonerating evidence.


What is California law? Will new evidence get SP a new trial?

[thinkaboutit]

I guess that would depend on what the new evidence was.

Agreed - so it's possible there IS new evidence - evidence that could raise considerable reasonable doubt to SP's guilt - and the public will not hear about it.

If it is not evidence that will get him a new trial - there is no point in talking about it.

So to simply state there is no new evidence - because no one has heard about it - is imo a false conclusion.

[accordn2me]

Agreed - so it's possible there IS new evidence - evidence that could raise considerable reasonable doubt to SP's guilt - and the public will not hear about it.

If it is not evidence that will get him a new trial - there is no point in talking about it.

So to simply state there is no new evidence - because no one has heard about it - is imo a false conclusion.
Like I said before....when someone is murdered...all the evidence is "frozen." Now, sometimes the evidence is not discovered until much later, say after a trial has taken place. If there is undiscovered evidence which is exonerating it cannot have been available during the first trial. Therefore, that means anything at all about those burglars that were investigated...will not qualify as undiscovered exonerating evidence. LE knew about the burglary and to the state's satisfaction...and apparently the defense's satisfaction, the burglars were cleared. So, unless there are some undiscovered burglars never before heard about, or questioned by anyone, 'the burglars did it' theory is on Death Row.

[thinkaboutit]

And in the same vein, there could be additional evidence that has turned up that points to his guilt - but since he's in prison LE isn't brining it up, either. The fact that we don't hear about it doesn't mean it's not there - but at a new trial it could come out as well.

Very true.

[thinkaboutit]

Like I said before....when someone is murdered...all the evidence is "frozen." Now, sometimes the evidence is not discovered until much later, say after a trial has taken place. If there is undiscovered evidence which is exonerating it cannot have been available during the first trial. Therefore, that means anything at all about those burglars that were investigated...will not qualify as undiscovered exonerating evidence. LE knew about the burglary and to the state's satisfaction...and apparently the defense's satisfaction, the burglars were cleared. So, unless there are some undiscovered burglars never before heard about, or questioned by anyone, 'the burglars did it' theory is on Death Row.

Which is (kind of) exactly my point. New evidence regarding those same burglars will not get SP a new trial - but could be admitted as evidence at a new trial. It is exactly the type of evidence that you would NOT hear about in the media - as there is no point in throwing it out there and giving the prosecution a heads up on how to prepare for the trial.

I strongly disagree that it is apparent that the burglars were cleared to the defense's satisfaction.

[accordn2me]

Which is (kind of) exactly my point. New evidence regarding those same burglars will not get SP a new trial - but could be admitted as evidence at a new trial. It is exactly the type of evidence that you would NOT hear about in the media - as there is no point in throwing it out there and giving the prosecution a heads up on how to prepare for the trial.

I strongly disagree that it is apparent that the burglars were cleared to the defense's satisfaction.
See, I was hoping you weren't talking about the burglars we all know about. There is no new evidence where those burglars are concerned. Prosecution knew about them. Defense knew about them. If the prosecution failed to turn over, or hid, something about them that would exonerate Scott, that might be an issue. However, the police cleared those burglars. Because the defense did not taking a proactive position and try to show it could have been the burglars, that implies that they were satisfied that the burglars were cleared. If the defense is not satisfied that the burglars were cleared, they missed their chance. These burglars won't be allowed to come into a new trial.

Some people may think my question, "Where do extraterrestrials fall on your list?" to attorneywan2be was facetious. Seriously, extraterrestrials, if you could find some undiscovered evidence of some being in the neighborhood around that time, have a much better chance of winning Scott a new trial than these widely known about, well investigated burglars.

[thinkaboutit]

See, I was hoping you weren't talking about the burglars we all know about. There is no new evidence where those burglars are concerned. Prosecution knew about them. Defense knew about them. If the prosecution failed to turn over, or hid, something about them that would exonerate Scott, that might be an issue. However, the police cleared those burglars. Because the defense did not taking a proactive position and try to show it could have been the burglars, that implies that they were satisfied that the burglars were cleared. If the defense is not satisfied that the burglars were cleared, they missed their chance. These burglars won't be allowed to come into a new trial.

Some people may think my question, "Where do extraterrestrials fall on your list?" to attorneywan2be was facetious. Seriously, extraterrestrials, if you could find some undiscovered evidence of some being in the neighborhood around that time, have a much better chance of winning Scott a new trial than these widely known about, well investigated burglars.

How do you KNOW there is no new evidence regarding these same burglars - and on what legal grounds do you base your statement on that new evidence regarding Todd and/or Pearce won't be allowed to come into a new trial? I believe you are wrong about this.

There are two completely separate issues here. What is going to get Scott a new trial and what will be admissable at the new trial. New evidence regarding the old burglars will probably NOT get SP a new trial - however I believe - if something is found - it WILL be admissable at the new trial.

Facetious or not - I don't see what extraterrestials has to do with the discussion of this case.

[deputydi]

<snip>There are two completely separate issues here. What is going to get Scott a new trial and what will be admissable at the new trial. New evidence regarding the old burglars will probably NOT get SP a new trial - however I believe - if something is found - it WILL be admissable at the new trial.<snip>
I agree with you on this one. If Scott is awarded a new trial, it will be as if the first trial never took place. He is back to being presumed innocent and any information new or old will be fair game. He could even be granted bail -- although that is extremely doubtful.

IMO a new trial for Scott is a very long shot. J Delucci ran a very by-the-book trial as far as I'm concerned and he was fair to both sides in his rulings. At this point in time, even a confession from one of the burglars wouldn't guarantee Scott's freedom or get him a new trial. The appeals court only looks at the trial record and rules on whether the challenged issues amount to fatal error. I don't think they will find any.

[accordn2me]

How do you KNOW there is no new evidence regarding these same burglars - and on what legal grounds do you base your statement on that new evidence regarding Todd and/or Pearce won't be allowed to come into a new trial? I believe you are wrong about this.

There are two completely separate issues here. What is going to get Scott a new trial and what will be admissable at the new trial. New evidence regarding the old burglars will probably NOT get SP a new trial - however I believe - if something is found - it WILL be admissable at the new trial.

Facetious or not - I don't see what extraterrestials has to do with the discussion of this case.I could be wrong? You kidder! :tongue:

Extraterrestrials are a possibility.

These same burglars: There is no new evidence. Are you saying there could be undiscovered exonerating evidence regarding these same burglars? If so, then it's too bad. The defense did not try to discover it = missed chance.

I'm glad you brought up the "two completely separate issues here." It has been explained to me before, very clearly....ImSun, by you IIRC....and here I've gone and fogotten it again. For the umpteenth time, will someone please clarify for me:

1. What would it take to get Scott a new trial?

2. What will be allowed in a new trial if he gets one?

[thinkaboutit]

I agree with you on this one. If Scott is awarded a new trial, it will be as if the first trial never took place. He is back to being presumed innocent and any information new or old will be fair game. He could even be granted bail -- although that is extremely doubtful.

IMO a new trial for Scott is a very long shot. J Delucci ran a very by-the-book trial as far as I'm concerned and he was fair to both sides in his rulings. At this point in time, even a confession from one of the burglars wouldn't guarantee Scott's freedom or get him a new trial. The appeals court only looks at the trial record and rules on whether the challenged issues amount to fatal error. I don't think they will find any.

Hi Deputydi - just wanted to say - I like your sig line!!! :patriot:

[deputydi]

Hi Deputydi - just wanted to say - I like your sig line!!! :patriot:
Thanks. Will Rogers was a very wise man and most of his quotes are as appropriate today as they were way back when. Some even more so. :)

[deputydi]

Delucchi let the jury 'test' the boat for stability on the trailer, and then denied the defense the opportunity to show a video of a similar boat in water. For a DP case that stinks on ice. I'm sure a superior court will find some reason to toss this case out and the MPD will have to start over.
He let the jury view the boat. He ended the viewing when the two male jurors jumped in the boat and started rocking it.

You do know that the trial error has to be considered a "fatal" error (not just any old run of the mill mistake). In other words, but not for this error the outcome may have been decided differently. I don't think this boat episode rises to that level.

[JustMyOpinion]

ISTR that over 60% of convictions in this part of the country get tossed for one reason or another, and as Delucchi himself observed, this case was "a Petri dish" for appeals. I also recall his comment that Peterson couldn't get an objective jury anywhere in the state.



Any case becomes a petri dish for appeals, especially a capital case, IMO
Could you link to Delucchi's statement that Peterson couldn't get an objective jury anywhere in the State? TIA

[enlightenme]

Any case becomes a petri dish for appeals, especially a capital case, IMO
Could you link to Delucchi's statement that Peterson couldn't get an objective jury anywhere in the State? TIA

JMO, you should know by now that JJ twists the testimony and calls it "facts".

By the volume of posts made here (and who knows where else on the Internet), it's seems that the only exercise JJ gets is in stretching, bending, and twisting the truth.

More exercise for JJ:

Making giant leaps of logic
Jumping to conclusions
Running off at the mouth
Turning a blind eye from the facts

Whew, that's a lot of exercise! I'm almost exhausted trying to follow or keep up to it.

It all seems more like an exercise in futility to me!

JMO

[accordn2me]

Where is page 6? Is my key not working....:confused:

[accordn2me]

It looks like this is page 6,A2MeThank goodness we found the secret passage! :D

But there's noone here....:shrug:

[One2Snoop]

Where is page 6? Is my key not working....:confused:

There were a boatload of posts deleted earlier today - so sometimes this messes up the page count - it may look like there are 6 pages but in reality there isn't because of the deleted posts. Hope that makes sense. :seeya:

[accordn2me]

Oh my, yes. Over 600 - 3 days worth of someone's posting.

I thought something was different...just couldn't put my finger on what it was....black coffee is not working as well today.

Thank you FW!:beer:

[enlightenme]

Oh my, yes. Over 600 - 3 days worth of someone's posting.

:eek: 600 posts in 3 days??? That's some record! One that I'm glad I don't have! Gadzooks!

[Otter]

I'll help you with the finger thing... (http://boards.crimelibrary.com/member.php?u=105347)

That's shortened my iggy list 100%. :D

Always remember not to drink the koolaid. :chicken:

[accordn2me]

I'll help you with the finger thing... (http://boards.crimelibrary.com/member.php?u=105347)
B....d again!

Wonder what is motive is for acting like that? :confused:

[enlightenme]

B....d again!

Wonder what is motive is for acting like that? :confused:


IMO, compulsion. He can't help himself.

Also, one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting (but not getting) a different result.

[TuscanDreams]

B....d again!

Wonder what is motive is for acting like that? :confused:

Narcisstic, attention seeking and poor impulse control is why people post like that, IMO.

Crazy, isn't it?

[adnoid]

Narcisstic, attention seeking and poor impulse control is why people post like that, IMO.

Crazy, isn't it?

Indeed it is. And then they get a new name & come back for more.

Which still doesn't change the fact that Geragos, for all he is, did the best he could for a client that was, indeed, guilty as charged.