Mistakes Made By the Defense

[thinkaboutit]

Just for you A2ME!

I hope everyone posts here within the guidelines of the rules of this forum - if not - the thread CAN be deleted! ;)

[accordn2me]

I'm honored! :rose:

I'll go first.

Mistakes made by the defense:

1. Taking the case.

[frydaddy]

I could probably list them point by point and witness by witness, but in hindsight, not including corroboration for all the red herrings that MG presented was a huge gaffe. I've always contended that MG was either a completely useless lawyer or he knew full well that there were no realistic alternates, thus he had to create them. I don't think one becomes a high priced gun for hire by being useless, so I think the latter is likely correct. And the foolery of "not preparing a penalty phase" because he didn't think he would need it...he should be disbarred. Either from his own arrogance or from his use of that excuse to try and gain ineffective assistance points somewhere up the line.

[deputydi]

The biggest mistake MG made was before the trial began -- going on all those shows and talking trash about Scott then taking $1M to defend him. As if that wasn't bad enough, his grandstanding on the Courthouse steps vowing to prove his client 100% innocent and then not even introducing evidence that might convince the jurors there was reasonable doubt. Did he think no one was listening?

[frydaddy]

The biggest mistake MG made was before the trial began -- going on all those shows and talking trash about Scott then taking $1M to defend him. As if that wasn't bad enough, his grandstanding on the Courthouse steps vowing to prove his client 100% innocent and then not even introducing evidence that might convince the jurors there was reasonable doubt. Did he think no one was listening?

Good call Di!

" ... even though it's -- even though it's a circumstantial evidence case, the most damning piece of circumstantial evidence comes out of his own mouth and his own hands, when he hands the police that receipt from the very location where two miles away, she's found. I mean, that is just a devastating thing. And if you believe that he's the one who, for whatever reason, got into it with her, killed her, put her in a tarp, put her in the boat, did all of that... KING: I mean, in a sense, could they say, We're going to try..."

"Well, and you know, the one -- and Nancy and I are agreeing way too much tonight, but the one thing that I would say along those lines is if Scott Peterson did this crime -- and everybody's, you know, innocent until proven guilty, and as I've said, it's a damning, circumstantial case -- the man is a sociopath if he did this crime. I mean, there's no other way to put it. This is his wife, his unborn baby boy. If he's the one who took the two of them up there and put concrete around them and threw them into the ocean and concocted this story and went out onto Diane Sawyer and gave that impassioned plea with the tears -- I mean, that's not somebody that generally you're going to want to give a manslaughter too."

Mark Geragos, Larry King Live, April 18, 2003

"...The evidence is going to show clearly, beyond any doubt, that not only is Scott Peterson not guilty, but Scott Peterson is stone cold innocent."

Mark Geragos, opening statement, June 2, 2004

[frydaddy]

Good call Di!

" ... even though it's -- even though it's a circumstantial evidence case, the most damning piece of circumstantial evidence comes out of his own mouth and his own hands, when he hands the police that receipt from the very location where two miles away, she's found. I mean, that is just a devastating thing. And if you believe that he's the one who, for whatever reason, got into it with her, killed her, put her in a tarp, put her in the boat, did all of that... KING: I mean, in a sense, could they say, We're going to try..."

"Well, and you know, the one -- and Nancy and I are agreeing way too much tonight, but the one thing that I would say along those lines is if Scott Peterson did this crime -- and everybody's, you know, innocent until proven guilty, and as I've said, it's a damning, circumstantial case -- the man is a sociopath if he did this crime. I mean, there's no other way to put it. This is his wife, his unborn baby boy. If he's the one who took the two of them up there and put concrete around them and threw them into the ocean and concocted this story and went out onto Diane Sawyer and gave that impassioned plea with the tears -- I mean, that's not somebody that generally you're going to want to give a manslaughter too."

Mark Geragos, Larry King Live, April 18, 2003

"...The evidence is going to show clearly, beyond any doubt, that not only is Scott Peterson not guilty, but Scott Peterson is stone cold innocent."

Mark Geragos, opening statement, June 2, 2004

"And, I've said before to all of the people who had doubts about this, that, or the other things in terms of comments that were being made, the people who know him best are standing behind him and standing behind me today 100 percent because they believe totally, unequivocally in this young man's innocence and they've turned my head around and I think it's only a matter of time before we're able to turn America's head around. Thank you very much."

Mark Geragos, CNN Live, May 5, 2003

[frydaddy]

Another mistake...trying to be funny in a murder trial with the victim's and defendant's families just feet away. Not good to come off like an insensitive arse in front of the jury, IMO.

JUDGE: Okay. Ms. Frey, you want to resume the stand, please. All right. The record should reflect that Ms. Frey has resumed the stand. Ms. Frey is still under oath.
JUDGE: Go ahead, Mr. Geragos.
GERAGOS: No questions, your Honor.
A JUROR: What?
GERAGOS: Just kidding. Trying to lighten it up a little.

[JustMyOpinion]

Another mistake...trying to be funny in a murder trial with the victim's and defendant's families just feet away. Not good to come off like an insensitive arse in front of the jury, IMO.

JUDGE: Okay. Ms. Frey, you want to resume the stand, please. All right. The record should reflect that Ms. Frey has resumed the stand. Ms. Frey is still under oath.
JUDGE: Go ahead, Mr. Geragos.
GERAGOS: No questions, your Honor.
A JUROR: What?
GERAGOS: Just kidding. Trying to lighten it up a little.

I agree. Also his aggressiveness & arrogance was a problem, IMO ( The defendant had an arrogant demeanor, this was already a problem in this case, IMO)
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=News&id=1712790
SNIP:
Karen Servas is the Peterson's next door neighbor who found their dog McKenzie loose on the street the day Laci vanished. During cross-examination, Geragos became quite aggressive with her on a number of points, including one that it turns out was personal for Geragos. At one time she wanted to file a complaint against him because a GLOBE reporter had shown up at her workplace. She testified she thought the reporter was there because of a remark Geragos had made to the media about a Modesto "mystery woman." But Geragos seems to think she thought he'd actually SENT the reporter there. In any case expert court observers think this proclivity for arrogance could be Geragos' Achilles Heel. Former San Mateo County Prosecutor Dean Johnson: "Geragos may be doing the one thing that could blow this case for him and doing it very early, which is arguing with these witnesses, fighting with these witnesses and alienating this jury who likes these witnesses." And you have to remember Geragos brings a lot of baggage to this, in the jury's terms. He's a Hollywood lawyer, he hangs with Michael Jackson and Wynona Ryder. The worst thing he can do as a charismatic, big time lawyer is seem rude or arrogant. The jury will hate him for that.

Johnson says there are times a lawyer should just ask a couple simple questions and move on: "Sure and they should be asked very softly and very gently. There may be a few good facts that you can bring out with this witness. Like for example, you didn't hear anything unusual that night and you were home all night, weren't you? Just ask it like that so you seem very friendly, kind and considerate of the witness. Sit down and shut up. But its the hardest thing for lawyers to do."

Chuck Smith: "In the battle between her and Geragos I think she was the clear winner. She came across beautifully."

[JustMyOpinion]

Also, taking Peterson when he was already representing Jackson, IMO. He was over-extended, and his representation of one high profile defendant could have impacted public perception of the other high profile defendant, IMO. Also, his reputed "smash mouth football"techniques. IMO, Distaso was the perfect choice for the DA to put up against Geragos. He just wouldn't "play". He just wouldn't get distracted from putting on his case, IMO.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3660632/
SNIP:Never before in the post-O.J. age of celebrity lawyers, it appears, has a single attorney juggled two of the nation’s biggest cases at the same time. Peterson’s case, which could last months, is scheduled to go to trial Jan. 26. Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon, meanwhile, promises to charge Jackson with “multiple counts” of child molestation by mid-December. Besides that, Geragos says his office is handling more than 75 other criminal cases. Is he overbooked? With a sly smile, he waves off the concern. “I’ve juggled cases before. It’s nothing unusual for me,” says the 46-year-old married father of two. Besides, he insists, his two celebrity clients are both “stone-cold innocent.”

Despite his bravado, Geragos admits he plans to add lawyers to his current roster of 12. Paul Geragos, Mark’s father and the founder of Geragos & Geragos, their law firm, which also includes Mark’s brother Matt, acknowledges that his now-famous son is “a legal brand,” a familiarity that helps him connect with jurors. For his part, Geragos seems to relish the attention. His only complaint: other high-profile lawyers have been “taking potshots at me on TV... then calling up [the clients and] offering their services for free, trying anything to grab one of these cases.”

Geragos first won national television exposure after back-to-back victories for Whitewater defendant Susan McDougal, which included a Little Rock showdown against independent counsel Ken Starr. “He managed a difficult balance of informing the media, not alienating the judge, and educating the jury,” says Bill Clinton’s lawyer David Kendall. But some prosecutors find him overbearing. “It’s smashmouth football when you’re in trial with Mark,” says John Lynch, a prosecutor in L.A.

Jackson hired Geragos in February when the pop star realized that an upcoming BBC documentary was focusing uncomfortably on his sharing a bed with children. So the defense team had months to investigate the situation before the Santa Barbara County D.A. reportedly learned of the alleged abuse in June. If the case goes forward, one likely target for the defense: prior allegations of sexual assault made by the alleged victim’s family. The boy’s parents filed a lawsuit in 1999 against JCPenney and Tower Records, in which they claimed store security guards beat the family after an alleged shoplifting episode in West Covina, Calif. (Shoplifting charges were filed but dropped.) In the suit, the family never mentioned sexual assault. But two years after the incident, NEWSWEEK has learned, all four members of the family claimed in depositions that the Tower guard had sexually assaulted the mother during the incident. The companies eventually paid the family a total of $152,500 without admitting guilt. But Michelle Moyer, who represented Tower’s parent company, MTS Inc., in the case, told NEWSWEEK that the material “would be very useful to Geragos.” Geragos himself wouldn’t comment.

But some of his peers see at least one drawback to Geragos’s current caseload. Fellow L.A. lawyer and friend Harland Braun, who defended Robert Blake, worries that public revulsion for one client might lead potential jurors to hold it against the other. Geragos isn’t stressed—yet. When jurors convicted actress Winona Ryder of stealing several thousands of dollars’ worth of merchandise after Geragos pledged to prove there was “no theft,” his career didn’t seem to falter. Still, this time the cases are bigger, the stakes higher—for the clients and for Geragos. In the fickle world of celebrity lawyering, it’s hard to stay king for long.

© 2006 Newsweek, Inc.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3660632/

[accordn2me]

Not putting Scott on the stand was a mistake, a2me.

Not putting Scott on the stand implicitly implies that the defense believes he is guilty. Obviously, that is my opinion. IF MG claims the family "turned his head around...." I say they turned it around with a cool $1M.

What other reason do y'all believe MG has for not putting Scott Lee Peterson on to defend himself against the charge of capital murder?

[JustMyOpinion]

Not putting Scott on the stand was a mistake, a2me.

Not putting Scott on the stand implicitly implies that the defense believes he is guilty. Obviously, that is my opinion. IF MG claims the family "turned his head around...." I say they turned it around with a cool $1M.

What other reason do y'all believe MG has for not putting Scott Lee Peterson on to defend himself against the charge of capital murder?

To this day, I don't know if Geragos advised him not to testify, and Scott accepted that advice, or.. if Scott refused to testify irrespective of Geragos's opinion on the matter. IMO, because the State had put on such a strong case, if Scott hoped to convince even one juror he was innocent, he would have needed to offer his own explanations for so much of his own behavior, IMO. But, if ( as I suspect) Geragos knows Scott is a sociopath, he couldn't put him up there.. it would have become very apparent under cross examination, IMO

[Hey Paula]

Not putting Scott on the stand was a mistake, a2me.

Not putting Scott on the stand implicitly implies that the defense believes he is guilty. Obviously, that is my opinion. IF MG claims the family "turned his head around...." I say they turned it around with a cool $1M.

What other reason do y'all believe MG has for not putting Scott Lee Peterson on to defend himself against the charge of capital murder?

The determining factor for Scott not taking the stand in his own defense was his performance during Michael Cardoza's mock cross.

IMO

[deputydi]

Another mistake...trying to be funny in a murder trial with the victim's and defendant's families just feet away. Not good to come off like an insensitive arse in front of the jury, IMO.

JUDGE: Okay. Ms. Frey, you want to resume the stand, please. All right. The record should reflect that Ms. Frey has resumed the stand. Ms. Frey is still under oath.
JUDGE: Go ahead, Mr. Geragos.
GERAGOS: No questions, your Honor.
A JUROR: What?
GERAGOS: Just kidding. Trying to lighten it up a little.
Yes. I had forgotten that disgusting attempt at humor.

It's one thing to appear confident at the defense table, but he should have told his client that his smirk was coming across as arrogant and disrespectful. During the entire trial Scott looked like he was totally enjoying the spotlight.

I know this has nothing to do with mistakes during the trial, but I was appalled when MG was not there when the verdict was read. That, to me, was the ultimate insult to the court.

[deputydi]

The determining factor for Scott not taking the stand in his own defense was his performance during Michael Cardoza's mock cross.

IMO
I agree, Paula. I think Scott would have made a pathetic witness and I'd give anything to hear what went on during his mock cross. I think Geragos knew Scott would not come across as very sympathetic and didn't want him to take the stand. Cardoza's mock cross was done to convince Scott of this.

[JustMyOpinion]

Yes. I had forgotten that disgusting attempt at humor.

It's one thing to appear confident at the defense table, but he should have told his client that his smirk was coming across as arrogant and disrespectful. During the entire trial Scott looked like he was totally enjoying the spotlight.

I know this has nothing to do with mistakes during the trial, but I was appalled when MG was not there when the verdict was read. That, to me, was the ultimate insult to the court.

It did have to do with the trial, IMO.. because his absence could have been perceived by the jury in a various ways,( despite his later excuse to them) and the penalty phase was still pending. JMO It was an insult to the court, an insult to his client, an insult to his client's parents who were paying his fee, and an insult to the jury..JMO Just terrible! JMO

[JustMyOpinion]

The determining factor for Scott not taking the stand in his own defense was his performance during Michael Cardoza's mock cross.

IMO

I agree with you !

[Hey Paula]

I forgot to name one of the mistakes made by the Defense.

Not resting, following the Pros' CIC, was a mistake. Geragos fared better at cross-examination. His CIC was a disaster, and Geragos would have been much better off if, following the Pros' CIC, he would have said, with an air of confidence, "Your Honor, the Defense rests." It would have been a dramatic ending in lieu of a disastrous one.

IMO

[accordn2me]

I forgot to name one of the mistakes made by the Defense.

Not resting, following the Pros' CIC, was a mistake. Geragos fared better at cross-examination. His CIC was a disaster, and Geragos would have been much better off if, following the Pros' CIC, he would have said, with an air of confidence, "Your Honor, the Defense rests." It would have been a dramatic ending in lieu of a disastrous one.IMO Hey, Paula :seeya:

Too bad I scrapped my first reply to you when b/f came home and interrupted it! I was going to mention this very thing!

Since MG, or someone, decided Scott would not take the stand, resting after the state's CIC would have been a better strategy. When I look at that pitiful 14-long list of CIC defense witnesses.....2 of whom are the defendant's parents...along with several LEOs....it becomes crystal clear that there was no real strategy.......just a fly-by-the-seat-of-his-Hollywood-pants attempt to earn $1M.

[Hey Paula]

I agree, Paula. I think Scott would have made a pathetic witness and I'd give anything to hear what went on during his mock cross. I think Geragos knew Scott would not come across as very sympathetic and didn't want him to take the stand. Cardoza's mock cross was done to convince Scott of this.

Hi Dep!

I can only imagine how bad it must have been when MC hit Scott with questions surrounding his many inconsistent statements, and untruths spoken during his TV interviews. I also agree with you about Scott not coming across as sympathetic, which is devastating in a case where a beloved pregnant woman was "dumped in the Bay as if her life were meaningless".

It's great to see you, Frydaddy, and perhaps others I don't recognize in their new attire. For a minute I thought Thinkaboutit was ThinkinBoutIt, but she was a SIG. I miss the days when we posted together daily.

[Hey Paula]

Hey, Paula :seeya:

Too bad I scrapped my first reply to you when b/f came home and interrupted it! I was going to mention this very thing!

Since MG, or someone, decided Scott would not take the stand, resting after the state's CIC would have been a better strategy. When I look at that pitiful 14-long list of CIC defense witnesses.....2 of whom are the defendant's parents...along with several LEOs....it becomes crystal clear that there was no real strategy.......just a fly-by-the-seat-of-his-Hollywood-pants attempt to earn $1M.

Hi A2M! :seeya:

ITA!

Yikes! :eek: Between Dr March asking the jury to cut him some slack, and the testimoney [sic] about a new method of sprinkling cement on the driveway, waiting for rain to set it, I'd like to reiterate that the Defense should have rested.

IMO

[accordn2me]

Hi A2M! :seeya:

ITA!

Yikes! :eek: Between Dr March asking the jury to cut him some slack, and the testimoney [sic] about a new method of sprinkling cement on the driveway, waiting for rain to set it, I'd like to reiterate that the Defense should have rested.

IMO
LOL! Were Dr. March and that "concrete expert" the defense's only two experts? If so, that's pitiful! It was pitiful anyway.

The public defenders that represented my mother's murderer took this approach....resting immediately after the state rested. I'd say it worked in his favor in that the jury found him guilty of manslaughter (sentenced by the judge to the maximum of 40 years) instead of second degree murder (mandatory LWOP). IMO, it's an arrogant nose thumbing to the prosecution...not to mention a gutsy, unproven move by the defense, no matter who the defendant is. Do you know if it's successful often?

[Hey Paula]

LOL! Were Dr. March and that "concrete expert" the defense's only two experts? If so, that's pitiful! It was pitiful anyway.

The public defenders that represented my mother's murderer took this approach....resting immediately after the state rested. I'd say it worked in his favor in that the jury found him guilty of manslaughter (sentenced by the judge to the maximum of 40 years) instead of second degree murder (mandatory LWOP). IMO, it's an arrogant nose thumbing to the prosecution...not to mention a gutsy, unproven move by the defense, no matter who the defendant is. Do you know if it's successful often?

When the Def is able to create RD during their cross of the Pros' witnesses, If they don't have witnesses who are powerful and convincing, then I think in cases like that, resting following the Pros' CIC could prove successful and is a good strategy.

I'm so sorry to hear about your mother, A2M! I'm also sorry this strategy worked to give your Mom's murderer a lighter sentence than he likely deserved.

:rose: In Memory of your Mom

:rose: For you, from me!

[accordn2me]

When the Def is able to create RD during their cross of the Pros' witnesses, If they don't have witnesses who are powerful and convincing, then I think in cases like that, resting following the Pros' CIC could prove successful and is a good strategy.

I'm so sorry to hear about your mother, A2M! I'm also sorry this strategy worked to give your Mom's murderer a lighter sentence than he likely deserved.

:rose: In Memory of your Mom

:rose: For you, from me!Hey Paula, Thank you for your kind words and the roses.

I feel that my mother's murderer should have gotten LWOP. I understand why he didn't.

I believe Scott Lee Peterson got the sentence that he deserved. I'm sorry that the system is so inefficient and it won't be carried out any time soon.

[JustMyOpinion]

LOL! Were Dr. March and that "concrete expert" the defense's only two experts? If so, that's pitiful! It was pitiful anyway.

The public defenders that represented my mother's murderer took this approach....resting immediately after the state rested. I'd say it worked in his favor in that the jury found him guilty of manslaughter (sentenced by the judge to the maximum of 40 years) instead of second degree murder (mandatory LWOP). IMO, it's an arrogant nose thumbing to the prosecution...not to mention a gutsy, unproven move by the defense, no matter who the defendant is. Do you know if it's successful often?

A2M,
I'm sorry for your loss. How difficult it must have been to lose your mother through the violent acts of another, to go through a trial, I truly cannot imagine it. Seems as if the murderer's lawyer was smarter than Geragos, it must be so tough to watch a defense strategy succeed when the victim was your own loved one.

[frydaddy]

Yes. I had forgotten that disgusting attempt at humor.

It's one thing to appear confident at the defense table, but he should have told his client that his smirk was coming across as arrogant and disrespectful. During the entire trial Scott looked like he was totally enjoying the spotlight.

I know this has nothing to do with mistakes during the trial, but I was appalled when MG was not there when the verdict was read. That, to me, was the ultimate insult to the court.


Very true...I can't imagine what could've been more important in MG's case load than the verdict in a murder trial. I mean, you gotta figure - a guy who's head has been turned around, who's invested in Mr. Stone Cold Innocent, and who did not prepare a penalty phase case because he didn't think he'd need it - he'd probably want to be there to receive his accolades and preen for all the world to see. That he wasn't there for his Kodak moment tells me he knew already what the world was gonna find out. IMO

[frydaddy]

LOL! Were Dr. March and that "concrete expert" the defense's only two experts? If so, that's pitiful! It was pitiful anyway.

The public defenders that represented my mother's murderer took this approach....resting immediately after the state rested. I'd say it worked in his favor in that the jury found him guilty of manslaughter (sentenced by the judge to the maximum of 40 years) instead of second degree murder (mandatory LWOP). IMO, it's an arrogant nose thumbing to the prosecution...not to mention a gutsy, unproven move by the defense, no matter who the defendant is. Do you know if it's successful often?

Sorry for your loss A2. Hopefully, the person gets a lifetime of punishment squeezed in to whatever time they serve!

:rose:

[Hey Paula]

Very true...I can't imagine what could've been more important in MG's case load than the verdict in a murder trial. I mean, you gotta figure - a guy who's head has been turned around, who's invested in Mr. Stone Cold Innocent, and who did not prepare a penalty phase case because he didn't think he'd need it - he'd probably want to be there to receive his accolades and preen for all the world to see. That he wasn't there for his Kodak moment tells me he knew already what the world was gonna find out. IMO

Good Morning Frydaddy and Everyone!

I don't truly believe Geragos was confident of an acquittal. I think his refusal to submit a witness list for the penalty phase, served a few purposes, i.e, to:

1) exude an air of confidence

2) buy more time when the guilty verdict was announced (MG knew full well that although Judge Delucchi warned him of the consequences for not submitting the list, that the defendant's right to a fair trial trumps all, and that he JD would grant extra time)

3) set the stage for an appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

MG was visibly absent because he knew what that verdict was going to be and this is one time Mr Hollywood didn't want to "Meet the Press".

IMO

[accordn2me]

Thank you friends for your kind words. The whole experience opened my naive eyes to things I would rather not know. Like sometimes the system is on your (victim's/survivors') side, and sometimes it's not. Grand juries should be abolished. The leeway afforded both sides, but mostly exploited by the defense, in opening and closing statements...and voir dire...was shocking. The power of victim impact statements.....oh, yeah....I learned soooo much.
:(

[One2Snoop]

Thank you friends for your kind words. The whole experience opened my naive eyes to things I would rather not know. Like sometimes the system is on your (victim's/survivors') side, and sometimes it's not. Grand juries should be abolished. The leeway afforded both sides, but mostly exploited by the defense, in opening and closing statements...and voir dire...was shocking. The power of victim impact statements.....oh, yeah....I learned soooo much.
:(

I'm so sorry to hear this about your mother and what you had to go through. Prayers for you. :rose: :rose:

[Hey Paula]

The fact that Drs Lee and Wecht were at a local hotel, waiting to be called as Def witnesses, but weren't, is very telling. I believe Dr March was the sacrifical lamb and when he imploded on the witness stand, Drs Lee and Wecht were not going to follow his disastrous ending.

IMO

[deputydi]

The fact that Drs Lee and Wecht were at a local hotel, waiting to be called as Def witnesses, but weren't, is very telling. I believe Dr March was the sacrifical lamb and when he imploded on the witness stand, Drs Lee and Wecht were not going to follow his disastrous ending.

IMO
I agree, but for me that will remain one of the big mysteries of the case.

[Hey Paula]

I agree, but for me that will remain one of the big mysteries of the case.

I think if Dr March's testimony had gone well, then perhaps one of them would have testified. If I were to take a guess, I'd say Dr Lee because Dr Wecht had made prior comments in the media, which led me to believe he either wouldn't testify, or wouldn't say anything to support the Def's contentions/theories.

IMO

[accordn2me]

One2Snoop, TopGunner, Thank you both.

It happened May 15, 1996. The anniversary is always hard...and so close to Mother's Day. You just have to go on with life. But I'll be prepared for the parole hearings which should start in 2011, if I'm still around. ;)

Like I said, when something like this happens, it opens your eyes to things you wish you'd never seen. And I found out...prosecutors can be just as crooked as anybody! Long story...different board.

That said.....I don't think the prosecutors in Scott's case did anything underhanded. And it pisses me off when I see people saying they want to punch Distaso's lights out. :flamemad:

[frydaddy]

What about the boat stunt pulled by MG? Major gaffe? Huge backfire?

[enlightenme]

What about the boat stunt pulled by MG? Major gaffe? Huge backfire?

You're right, huge!

Funniest part of the defense has to be the actual boat experiment by Geragos during the trial. Poor Raffe, all weighted to simulate Scott's weight, sticking his leg over the side of the boat, trying to make it capsize. All it did was get swamped and he jumped out.

I wish the jurors could have seen this video. They deserved some laughter during such a long, drawn out, trial!

[JustMyOpinion]

What about the boat stunt pulled by MG? Major gaffe? Huge backfire?

I don't think it achieved what he intended. I think it was highly unethical conduct by an officer of the court, but it doesn't appear the CA Bar will discipline him for it, despite the report that at least one complaint was filed. JMO

[deputydi]

I think if Dr March's testimony had gone well, then perhaps one of them would have testified. If I were to take a guess, I'd say Dr Lee because Dr Wecht had made prior comments in the media, which led me to believe he either wouldn't testify, or wouldn't say anything to support the Def's contentions/theories.

IMO
True, but why go to the expense (not to mention wasting Dr Wecht's time) of flying him from one coast to the other? He had to know Dr Wecht's testimony was not going to help Scott's case BEFORE the trial even began.

[JustMyOpinion]

True, but why go to the expense (not to mention wasting Dr Wecht's time) of flying him from one coast to the other? He had to know Dr Wecht's testimony was not going to help Scott's case BEFORE the trial even began.

Since Scott's trial,Wecht has been indicted on 84 counts of mail & wire fraud, Prosecutors also claim Wecht was bilking private clients by inflating his travel costs. Court records indicate one of the alleged victims of the travel scams was Scott Peterson.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/25/cyril.wecht/index.html

[deputydi]

Since Scott's trial,Wecht has been indicted on 84 counts of mail & wire fraud, Prosecutors also claim Wecht was bilking private clients by inflating his travel costs. Court records indicate one of the alleged victims of the travel scams was Scott Peterson.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/25/cyril.wecht/index.html
I know ALL about Dr Wecht's "84 count" indictment. I've said over and over and over that he hasn't been tried yet and when he is, IMO he will be exonerated completely. This attack on him is purely political. He was indicted and tried 25 or more years ago on pretty much the same allegations. It didn't work then (he was acquitted on all counts) and it won't work this time either.

I am not sure where your information comes from, but Dr Wecht does not bill the county for his expert testimony. The county did not pay his travel expenses, therefore, he could not have "overcharged" for inflated travel expenses. In his private consulting company, he can charge whatever he likes and, if you think it's too much, you don't have to hire him. This whole thing is bogus.

[Hey Paula]

True, but why go to the expense (not to mention wasting Dr Wecht's time) of flying him from one coast to the other? He had to know Dr Wecht's testimony was not going to help Scott's case BEFORE the trial even began.

Thinking back to the time Dr Wecht was first hired, MG, through his media contacts, was able to float his satanic cult theory BIG TIME {emphasis only). There were comments made that Laci was cut-up like a turkey and photos of the Albany Bulb artists' work, some projecting images which would support this theory. Eventually, after Dr Peterson's findings were released, this talk dissipated considerably, and the press, including Geraldo Rivera, who had previously reported on the history of Modesto's surrounding area's satanic ritual incidents resulting in deaths, pulled back as well.

Due to the super high profile status this case achieved, (and still achieves to this day) and the incredibly overwhelming evidence against Scott Peterson, much of it the result of his own making, and spewed from his own mouth, I think this caused some to rethink their testimoney [sic] and MG might have decided he couldn't use their testimony, so why pay them for it. Had Dr March's testimony proved more successful, we might have seen more notable Def witnesses testify.

IMO

[JustMyOpinion]

I know ALL about Dr Wecht's "84 count" indictment. I've said over and over and over that he hasn't been tried yet and when he is, IMO he will be exonerated completely. This attack on him is purely political. He was indicted and tried 25 or more years ago on pretty much the same allegations. It didn't work then (he was acquitted on all counts) and it won't work this time either.

I am not sure where your information comes from, but Dr Wecht does not bill the county for his expert testimony. The county did not pay his travel expenses, therefore, he could not have "overcharged" for inflated travel expenses. In his private consulting company, he can charge whatever he likes and, if you think it's too much, you don't have to hire him. This whole thing is bogus.

My information comes from news sources ( one of which is the link I provided)
I disagree with you that he will be exonerated completely if this ever goes to trial, as I haven't seen enough of the actual evidence to form an opinion as to his guilt or innocence. I don't think the indictment is purely political or bogus ( some evidence was shown for a Grand Jury to indict, IMO). Wecht's lawyers recently lost their bid to have the judge removed, but they did prevail on their request to be allowed to make an FBI agent's personnel record public. If he files an appeal, trial could be delayed for quite some time.. JMO

[deputydi]

My information comes from news sources ( one of which is the link I provided)
I disagree with you that he will be exonerated completely if this ever goes to trial, as I haven't seen enough of the actual evidence to form an opinion as to his guilt or innocence. I don't think the indictment is purely political or bogus ( some evidence was shown for a Grand Jury to indict, IMO). Wecht's lawyers recently lost their bid to have the judge removed, but they did prevail on their request to be allowed to make an FBI agent's personnel record public. If he files an appeal, trial could be delayed for quite some time.. JMO
I did read your link and I've read many articles in our local paper. The indictment means absolutely nothing -- you've heard about that "ham sandwich" haven't you? If he is convicted on any of the counts, it will (IMO) be the nuisance ones for which he will pay a nominal fine.

Believe me, (or not :) ) but his long running feud with DA Zapalla is well documented and well known. This was a political witchhunt nothing more, nothing less.

I guess we'll both have to wait and see, won't we. ;)

[frydaddy]

You're right, huge!

Funniest part of the defense has to be the actual boat experiment by Geragos during the trial. Poor Raffe, all weighted to simulate Scott's weight, sticking his leg over the side of the boat, trying to make it capsize. All it did was get swamped and he jumped out.

I wish the jurors could have seen this video. They deserved some laughter during such a long, drawn out, trial!

Wonder if MG has good insurance for his employees...or gives them hazard pay, for this type of thing?

[frydaddy]

I don't think it achieved what he intended. I think it was highly unethical conduct by an officer of the court, but it doesn't appear the CA Bar will discipline him for it, despite the report that at least one complaint was filed. JMO

Yep, seems like MG gets his "Hollywood" reputation from stuff like this and he gets away with it. I think he's watched too much TV...probably while getting his man-tan. IMO

[JustMyOpinion]

I did read your link and I've read many articles in our local paper. The indictment means absolutely nothing -- you've heard about that "ham sandwich" haven't you? If he is convicted on any of the counts, it will (IMO) be the nuisance ones for which he will pay a nominal fine.

Believe me, (or not :) ) but his long running feud with DA Zapalla is well documented and well known. This was a political witchhunt nothing more, nothing less.

I guess we'll both have to wait and see, won't we. ;)

I am more than willing to wait and see what the evidence actually shows. I do agree with you that the decision to launch the investigation could have been politically motivated, but irrespective of the "ham sandwich" phrase, I still think a Grand Jury indicts because there is a showing of enough evidence to convince them charges are warranted. JMO

[deputydi]

I am more than willing to wait and see what the evidence actually shows. I do agree with you that the decision to launch the investigation could have been politically motivated, but irrespective of the "ham sandwich" phrase, I still think a Grand Jury indicts because there is a showing of enough evidence to convince them charges are warranted. JMO
The reason a GJ will indict just about anyone the DA asks them to is there is NO defense presented. The jury only hears one side of the issue. The DA presented only that which supported his case -- without hearing any rebuttal, of course they will vote to indict. I'd have to think really, really hard to come up with a single case presented to a GJ where they didn't indict. I'm sure there have been some, I just can't think of one.

[Hey Paula]

The reason a GJ will indict just about anyone the DA asks them to is there is NO defense presented. The jury only hears one side of the issue. The DA presented only that which supported his case -- without hearing any rebuttal, of course they will vote to indict. I'd have to think really, really hard to come up with a single case presented to a GJ where they didn't indict. I'm sure there have been some, I just can't think of one.

They refused to indict the Ramseys for their daughter's murder.

[accordn2me]

The reason a GJ will indict just about anyone the DA asks them to is there is NO defense presented. The jury only hears one side of the issue. The DA presented only that which supported his case -- without hearing any rebuttal, of course they will vote to indict. I'd have to think really, really hard to come up with a single case presented to a GJ where they didn't indict. I'm sure there have been some, I just can't think of one.
I can think of one. :flamemad: Grand Juries are a joke. D.As use them to get out of cases they don't want to prosecute. Anyone can go in there and say anything. Testimony is secret, supposedly. Many grand jurors don't know their rights or actually how much power they are afforded and they believe anything that comes out of the D.A.'s mouth.

[JustMyOpinion]

The reason a GJ will indict just about anyone the DA asks them to is there is NO defense presented. The jury only hears one side of the issue. The DA presented only that which supported his case -- without hearing any rebuttal, of course they will vote to indict. I'd have to think really, really hard to come up with a single case presented to a GJ where they didn't indict. I'm sure there have been some, I just can't think of one.

I understand there is no defense presented in Grand Jury proceedings. Offhand, John and Patsy Ramsey weren't indicted. Offhand, Karl Rove wasn't indicted. Those are the first two that came to mind.

[accordn2me]

I understand there is no defense presented in Grand Jury proceedings. Offhand, John and Patsy Ramsey weren't indicted. Offhand, Karl Rove wasn't indicted. Those are the first two that came to mind.Why do you think these people were not indicted?

[JustMyOpinion]

Why do you think these people were not indicted?

I don't think the evidence was sufficient for the GJ to return an indictment in those cases.
BTW Wecht's attorney filed a motion to dismiss, it was not granted by the judge ( opinion is available) then Wecht's attorneys filed an appeal to have the judge removed, which has also failed.

[accordn2me]

I don't think the evidence was sufficient for the GJ to return an indictment in those cases.
BTW Wecht's attorney filed a motion to dismiss, it was not granted by the judge ( opinion is available) then Wecht's attorneys filed an appeal to have the judge removed, which has also failed.I don't think the District Attorney wanted them to be indicted, or they would have been. District Attorneys' notoriously hide behind grand juries for cases they are afraid they will lose and have egg on their faces over. This is the only reason grand juries are kept around.

[JustMyOpinion]

I don't think the District Attorney wanted them to be indicted, or they would have been. District Attorney's notoriously hide behind grand juries for cases they are afraid they will lose and have egg on their faces over. This is the only reason grand juries are kept around.

I'm not saying that never happens, but I don't think that is always the case.

[accordn2me]

I'm not saying that never happens, but I don't think that is always the case.
I do.

Not all states use grand juries. They are not necessary. They are an arm of the D.A.'s office, nothing more. Show me a D.A. that has a perfect record....Nancy Grace would be a wonderful case study for this....I wonder how many cases she jettisoned at the Grand Jury level (if her state is one of the ones that use GJs :shrug: ) and told the families..."Oh, I'm so sorry. We're not privy to the deliberations of the grand jury. I don't know why they didn't indict."

And I don't mean to pick on Nancy. I love her. It's just as I was typing...she came to mind because she does have a perfect prosecutorial record. Her state...was it Georgia...may not even use GJs....

[thinkaboutit]

I am more than willing to wait and see what the evidence actually shows. I do agree with you that the decision to launch the investigation could have been politically motivated, but irrespective of the "ham sandwich" phrase, I still think a Grand Jury indicts because there is a showing of enough evidence to convince them charges are warranted. JMO




Didn't a grand jury indict the three young men from Duke University?

[accordn2me]

Didn't a grand jury indict the three young men from Duke University?
You know they did, birthday girl! :rose:

Another example of how meaningless a grand jury indictment is.

I'll say it again because most people don't know why district attorneys want grand juries....grand juries are kept around as a scapegoat for when the DA knows they will look bad to the voting public if they don't make it seem like they want to hold a suspect accountable, yet privately, the DA believes they might lose the case and hurt their win/loss record. Grand Juries are a farce, a facade for the D.A. to get out of doing their job while appearing to uphold their oath of office. Grand juries should be abolished in all states.

[Hey Paula]

Didn't a grand jury indict the three young men from Duke University?

If Nifong hadn't hidden the exculpatory evidence from the GJ, they might not have indicted the innocent young men.

IMO

[accordn2me]

IMO Geragos' biggest mistake was in assuming that he would wind up with at least a few jurors who could think logically and would see that the prosecution had made no case. That's why the commentators assumed a jury would hang at least. Unfortunately it seems those people were eliminated from the jury. At least one of those jurors asked the court to replace him because he "could no longer fairly weigh the evidence...." after having "a fit of conscience."

Do you think Scott should have exercised his right to...and MG should have requested a trial by judge only?

[Hey Paula]

IMO Geragos' biggest mistake was in assuming that he would wind up with at least a few jurors who could think logically and would see that the prosecution had made no case. That's why the commentators assumed a jury would hang at least. Unfortunately it seems those people were eliminated from the jury.

Hi JJ!

What was Geragos to do? He couldn't change the system. Jurors had to be selected and he was part of that selection process. He even got the gambling granny booted. He was left with many unused peremptive strikes, so he was satisfied with the jury selected.

I realize when we view someone innocent, while the majority views them guilty, that we don't see all of their behavior as evidence of guilt. I've held the minority opinion a few times myself. But I must admit that I would have a difficult time trying to defend Scott. There are just too many coincidences, lies and inconsistent statements. Scott was the State's best witness, and the one who made the most compelling case for them.

IMO

[frydaddy]

IMO Geragos' biggest mistake was in assuming that he would wind up with at least a few jurors who could think logically and would see that the prosecution had made no case. That's why the commentators assumed a jury would hang at least. Unfortunately it seems those people were eliminated from the jury.

Jim, when I look on the front page of this board, I see you posting in a frenzy. Commentators got it wrong, MG got it wrong, and YOU got it wrong. At least you have the automatic appeal to place your hopes on. What then?

[deputydi]

<snip>I'll say it again because most people don't know why district attorneys want grand juries....grand juries are kept around as a scapegoat for when the DA knows they will look bad to the voting public if they don't make it seem like they want to hold a suspect accountable, yet privately, the DA believes they might lose the case and hurt their win/loss record. Grand Juries are a farce, a facade for the D.A. to get out of doing their job while appearing to uphold their oath of office. Grand juries should be abolished in all states.
Exactly right. DAs are elected officials, first and foremost.

[accordn2me]

Exactly right. DAs are elected officials, first and foremost.

:beer: I'm glad somebody understands this!

I found it out the hard way. :flamemad:

[deputydi]

:beer: I'm glad somebody understands this!

I found it out the hard way. :flamemad:
I'm sorry you had to find out the hard way, but it is true. DA's are very adept at using the GJ system to their advantage. They know exactly how to present their case to either win or lose an indictment. Any DA worth reelection is very good at "playing the game".

[frydaddy]

I only go it wrong until I started reading the case. Too bad the jury didn't do that - then they would have realized that Scott was innocent.

Actually, what is too bad is that Scott didn't man up and face the jury in his own defense. If he's innocent, might have helped his cause. Oh yeah, Scott wanted to testify, but MG wouldn't let him. Two pillars of integrity like Scott and Mark would never mislead us now, would they? And Cardoza...wonder why he hasn't come out and said what a travesty of justice this was. I'm sure such a statement would not affect the appeal process, simply claiming that he believes the jury got it wrong. But he hasn't, has he?

[thinkaboutit]

You know they did, birthday girl! :rose:

Another example of how meaningless a grand jury indictment is.

I'll say it again because most people don't know why district attorneys want grand juries....grand juries are kept around as a scapegoat for when the DA knows they will look bad to the voting public if they don't make it seem like they want to hold a suspect accountable, yet privately, the DA believes they might lose the case and hurt their win/loss record. Grand Juries are a farce, a facade for the D.A. to get out of doing their job while appearing to uphold their oath of office. Grand juries should be abolished in all states.

Thanks A2ME!!

[thinkaboutit]

If Nifong hadn't hidden the exculpatory evidence from the GJ, they might not have indicted the innocent young men.

IMO

Very true.....and I certainly don't hold the GJ accountable for what happened to those three young men. But I definitely think it shows that the grand jury system is fallible. I definitely hold Nifong responsible - it's appalling that these boys had to endure what they did - and that they lost an entire year of their lives.

[Hey Paula]

Very true.....and I certainly don't hold the GJ accountable for what happened to those three young men. But I definitely think it shows that the grand jury system is fallible. I definitely hold Nifong responsible - it's appalling that these boys had to endure what they did - and that they lost an entire year of their lives.

I believe when those who have taken an oath to enforce and uphold the law break it, their punishment should be more severe than the rest of the lawbreakers. Not only do I feel Nifong should be disbarred, but incarcerated as well.

IMO

[thinkaboutit]

I believe when those who have taken an oath to enforce and uphold the law break it, their punishment should be more severe than the rest of the lawbreakers. Not only do I feel Nifong should be disbarred, but incarcerated as well.

IMO

Oh yes!! I agree 100%!!!!:beer:

[accordn2me]

1. Taking the case.

2. Not including corroboration for all the red herrings presented.

2b. not preparing a penalty phase

3. Before the trial began---going on all those shows and talking trash about Scott then taking $1M to defend him.

3b. grandstanding on Courthouse steps vowing to prove his client 100% innocent and then not even introducing evidence that might convince the jurors there was reasonable doubt

4. Trying to be funny in a murder trial with the victims' and defendant's families just feet away.

5. Aggressiveness & arrogance

6. Taking Peterson when he [MG] was already representing Jackson [Michael]

7. Not putting Scott on the stand.

8. Not resting following the Prosection's Case in Chief

9. The boat stunt

[frydaddy]

1. Taking the case.

2. Not including corroboration for all the red herrings presented.

2b. not preparing a penalty phase

3. Before the trial began---going on all those shows and talking trash about Scott then taking $1M to defend him.

3b. grandstanding on Courthouse steps vowing to prove his client 100% innocent and then not even introducing evidence that might convince the jurors there was reasonable doubt

4. Trying to be funny in a murder trial with the victims' and defendant's families just feet away.

5. Aggressiveness & arrogance

6. Taking Peterson when he [MG] was already representing Jackson [Michael]

7. Not putting Scott on the stand.

8. Not resting following the Prosection's Case in Chief

9. The boat stunt

Well, at least MG wore nice suits! :D

[accordn2me]

Well, at least MG wore nice suits! :DHey frydaddy

I have to admit....I'm a bit disappointed in this thread. I hollered to high heaven to get it started....other posters expressed an interest in seeing the same....thinkaboutit was kind enough to start it....Thanks again, tai :seeya:

So far...it's been mostly Gs posting on it....and nothing we've included...expect maybe the not preparing a penalty phase (I wasn't sure if that was a mistake or intentional on MGs part...maybe an intentional mistake....:confused:) but so far....nothing that would qualify as a gross mistake on MG's part....

Come on NGs/SIIs.......what mistakes did MG make that hurt Scott's case?

or

What could MG have done to help Scott's case?

[Unperson1984]

I believe MG should have appealed the decision to move the trial to Redwood City. It was a move without meaning, both cities are in the same media market.

I live in Southern California and the case was seldom on the front page or reported on the nightly news.

:)

[accordn2me]

I believe MG should have appealed the decision to move the trial to Redwood City. It was a move without meaning, both cities are in the same media market.

I live in Southern California and the case was seldom on the front page or reported on the nightly news.

:)Didn't the defense request the change?

[accordn2me]

MG wanted the trial moved to LA so it would be convenient for HIM, not for a fair trial for ISP. The judge compromised.
I thought the defense made the request, TG. I agree with requesting a change if the defense presents a good arguement that it would be too hard to get a fair trial, especially in a relatively small community like Modesto. It would not be fair if the defense were allowed to choose the venue!:no:

[Hey Paula]

MG wanted the trial moved to LA so it would be convenient for HIM, not for a fair trial for ISP. The judge compromised.

ITA!

That's exactly why Geragos wanted the COV to LA. It certainly wasn't convenient for the Pros or Laci's family. Besides LA being close to MG's office and home, MG is better acquainted with the LA courts, and those who serve there. LA's constituency is also more liberal than that of San Mateo County.

IMO

[accordn2me]

ITA!

That's exactly why Geragos wanted the COV to LA. It certainly wasn't convenient for the Pros or Laci's family. Besides LA being close to MG's office and home, MG is better acquainted with the LA courts, and those who serve there. LA's constituency is also more liberal than that of San Mateo County.

IMOWhen that downtown LA jury let the double murdering scumbag OJ Simpson walk free, they should have had the courthouse shut down and not allowed ANY more trials there!:flamemad:

[Hey Paula]

When that downtown LA jury let the double murdering scumbag OJ Simpson walk free, they should have had the courthouse shut down and not allowed ANY more trials there!:flamemad:

That trial was a travesty of justice. Not only did it allow a double-murderer to walk free, but it stigmatized Simpson's jury and those who cheered his acquittal as though Simpson had scored a touchdown. It was a day which will live in infamy in the annals of American Justice (or lack thereof).

IMO

[Unperson1984]

Didn't the defense request the change?


Yes they did, and the Court found that a CoV was warranted. However, moving the trial within the same media market was meaningless. A move meant to actually avoid the local media coverage could have been to a number of locations, San Diego, Ventura, Riverside or San Bernardino Counties.

:)

[accordn2me]

Yes they did, and the Court found that a CoV was warranted. However, moving the trial within the same media market was meaningless. A move meant to actually avoid the local media coverage could have been to a number of locations, San Diego, Ventura, Riverside or San Bernardino Counties.

:)South Louisiana must be within the same media market too. That's where I was living at the time. I remember friends talking about it everyday. I'm assuming they must have been watching the coverage on TV.:shrug:

[enlightenme]

Yes they did, and the Court found that a CoV was warranted. However, moving the trial within the same media market was meaningless. A move meant to actually avoid the local media coverage could have been to a number of locations, San Diego, Ventura, Riverside or San Bernardino Counties.

:)

There was national media coverage from ALL major networks. It wouldn't have mattered where they moved this trial to. The judge made his decision and it won't cause an appeal issue, IMO.

[deputydi]

South Louisiana must be within the same media market too. That's where I was living at the time. I remember friends talking about it everyday. I'm assuming they must have been watching the coverage on TV.:shrug:
SW PA must be in the same media market also. ;)

[accordn2me]

It would not have mattered who Mark put on the stand.

Henry Lee could have taken the stand and he would have been accused of not speaking english very well.

Maybe he should not have got his man tan.It's easy to play Monday morning quarterback.

My point: Scott didn't take the stand. He is on death row in San Quentin.

Had Scott taken the stand, it couldn't have ended much worse for him, now could it?

[TuscanDreams]

It's easy to play Monday morning quarterback.

My point: Scott didn't take the stand. He is on death row in San Quentin.

Had Scott taken the stand, it couldn't have ended much worse for him, now could it?

You are right. It couldn't have hurt to have Scott testify. I don't blame Geragos for not putting him on the stand, though. (and I'm not a Geragos fan by any stretch of the imagination)

[deputydi]

You are right. It couldn't have hurt to have Scott testify. I don't blame Geragos for not putting him on the stand, though. (and I'm not a Geragos fan by any stretch of the imagination)
IMO that was the best decision Geragos made throughout the entire trial. Personally, I'd love to have seen Scott under oath, but the arrogance he showed just sitting at the defense table would have been magnified 10 fold on the witness stand.

[pepperw2]

I believe when those who have taken an oath to enforce and uphold the law break it, their punishment should be more severe than the rest of the lawbreakers. Not only do I feel Nifong should be disbarred, but incarcerated as well.

IMO


Very good point!!:beer:

[TuscanDreams]

This trial would have had to taken place in an Amish village for the jurors to have no knowledge of this case.

[accordn2me]

This trial would have had to taken place in an Amish village for the jurors to have no knowledge of this case.:lol: I don't believe the defense necessarily wanted jurors to have no knowledge of the case or they wouldn't have leaked so much to the public. I believe the defense wished for a jury like the OJ Simpson one - supsicious of LE.

[Otter]

I have a dumb question about discovery. When either side has an expert on the witness list, is the other side required to get a copy of the "report" or whatever you would call it.

I don't mean crime scene evidence or DNA (or the lack thereof), or an autopsy that the state conducts, that needs to be turned over. I mean someone like Cheng, the concrete guy, or Dr. March. If Lee or Wecht testified, would the prosecution know beforehand what their conclusions are?

Does the other side have any idea what the expert is going to testify to?

You'd think after all these years of "sleuthing" and "lawyering", I'd know that! :D TIA!

[enlightenme]

I have a dumb question about discovery. When either side has an expert on the witness list, is the other side required to get a copy of the "report" or whatever you would call it.

I don't mean crime scene evidence or DNA (or the lack thereof), or an autopsy that the state conducts, that needs to be turned over. I mean someone like Cheng, the concrete guy, or Dr. March. If Lee or Wecht testified, would the prosecution know beforehand what their conclusions are?

Does the other side have any idea what the expert is going to testify to?

You'd think after all these years of "sleuthing" and "lawyering", I'd know that! :D TIA!

I think that it depends on whether the expert makes a written report. Sometimes they don't, so the other side doen't know exactly what's coming.

JMO

[One2Snoop]

I have a dumb question about discovery. When either side has an expert on the witness list, is the other side required to get a copy of the "report" or whatever you would call it.

I don't mean crime scene evidence or DNA (or the lack thereof), or an autopsy that the state conducts, that needs to be turned over. I mean someone like Cheng, the concrete guy, or Dr. March. If Lee or Wecht testified, would the prosecution know beforehand what their conclusions are?

Does the other side have any idea what the expert is going to testify to?

You'd think after all these years of "sleuthing" and "lawyering", I'd know that! :D TIA!

I'm no expert on this - in fact I know nodda about it so here goes.... Other than whats written and turned over - which may show conclusions (testing etc...) I'm not sure how the other side could know otherwise. What I mean is if one side talks about what their testifying to beforehand is that allowed? I wouldn't think so. I'm sure I just made a bigger mess of your question LOL. :tongue:

[Otter]

I think that it depends on whether the expert makes a written report. Sometimes they don't, so the other side doen't know exactly what's coming.

JMO

I'm no expert on this - in fact I know nodda about it so here goes.... Other than whats written and turned over - which may show conclusions (testing etc...) I'm not sure how the other side could know otherwise. What I mean is if one side talks about what their testifying to beforehand is that allowed? I wouldn't think so. I'm sure I just made a bigger mess of your question LOL. :tongue:

You both make sense and that's kind of what I thought. If it isn't written, there is no discovery except who the expert is via the witness list.

I've seen trials where there's a short recess so whichever side can consult with their expert in how to cross or redirect or recross, yadda yadda yadda. The back and forth on Cheng is what brought up my question. MG didn't have an expert, so I wondered if he was able to have an expert review a report, if any, before his cross to assist him.

Its hard to tell from the transcript. :D

[Sturgeon_Moon]

I think that it depends on whether the expert makes a written report. Sometimes they don't, so the other side doen't know exactly what's coming.

JMOThat sounds like the rule rather than the exception.

imo

[Lavindar]

I have a dumb question about discovery. When either side has an expert on the witness list, is the other side required to get a copy of the "report" or whatever you would call it.

I don't mean crime scene evidence or DNA (or the lack thereof), or an autopsy that the state conducts, that needs to be turned over. I mean someone like Cheng, the concrete guy, or Dr. March. If Lee or Wecht testified, would the prosecution know beforehand what their conclusions are?

Does the other side have any idea what the expert is going to testify to?

You'd think after all these years of "sleuthing" and "lawyering", I'd know that! :D TIA!


My understanding is that there should be NO surprises at a trial - both sides are aware of what the witnesses are going to say beforehand.

[Lavindar]

I think that it depends on whether the expert makes a written report. Sometimes they don't, so the other side doen't know exactly what's coming.

JMO Still, I think their RESULTS have to be turned over to the opposing counsel. They have to prepare their cross examination. I know witness lists have to be turned over

[Lavindar]

IMO that was the best decision Geragos made throughout the entire trial. Personally, I'd love to have seen Scott under oath, but the arrogance he showed just sitting at the defense table would have been magnified 10 fold on the witness stand.

The problem with Scott testifying is that he would be open for cross examination on all of his lies. He would have had to admit that, indeed he was NOT in PARIS like he said to Amber. He would have been mince meat on the stand.

[Otter]

The problem with Scott testifying is that he would be open for cross examination on all of his lies. He would have had to admit that, indeed he was NOT in PARIS like he said to Amber. He would have been mince meat on the stand.


And wouldn't have been "glorious" to behold? :D

[adnoid]

And wouldn't have been "glorious" to behold? :D

Unapproachable, even!

[Otter]

Unapproachable, even!

EEK! I didn't think of that. That would take a fulgar personality and even one with a really bad attuite to think otherwise.

Neither of us would ever have such conduct unbecoming. :beer:

[adnoid]

EEK! I didn't think of that. That would take a fulgar personality and even one with a really bad attuite to think otherwise.

Neither of us would ever have such conduct unbecoming. :beer:

That's what the lost whales told me telepathically.

[I'mSun]

That's what the lost whales told me telepathically.
I was just reading an article that talked about whale watching becoming an increasingly popular sport.

[Lavindar]

I have a dumb question about discovery. When either side has an expert on the witness list, is the other side required to get a copy of the "report" or whatever you would call it.

I don't mean crime scene evidence or DNA (or the lack thereof), or an autopsy that the state conducts, that needs to be turned over. I mean someone like Cheng, the concrete guy, or Dr. March. If Lee or Wecht testified, would the prosecution know beforehand what their conclusions are?

Does the other side have any idea what the expert is going to testify to?

You'd think after all these years of "sleuthing" and "lawyering", I'd know that! :D TIA!
Otter I just read somewhere that CA has reciprocal discovery - meaning both sides have to turn over evidence. No surprises for attornies are allowed...lol

[Lavindar]

The problem with Scott testifying is that he would be open for cross examination on all of his lies. He would have had to admit that, indeed he was NOT in PARIS like he said to Amber. He would have been mince meat on the stand. It only takes one lie to impeach a witness and make all his testimony disappear. Too bad it can't happen to attornies.

[Mark]

Is it true that Garagos is cut off from Scott now?

[Otter]

Is it true that Garagos is cut off from Scott now?

Hi Mark! I'm pretty sure he has nothing to do with the appeal, but he's still linked on the family's site:

http://scottpetersonappeal.org/id22.html

I didn't want to click on the link, but maybe he's still soliciting donations.

[Mark]

Hi Mark! I'm pretty sure he has nothing to do with the appeal, but he's still linked on the family's site:

http://scottpetersonappeal.org/id22.html

I didn't want to click on the link, but maybe he's still soliciting donations.

Thank you. Finally someone answered me.

I thought he was out with the Ps, guess not. Donations? for what? Lee said he had money. I understand there are others asking for donations on the behalf of the murderer even though it is going in their own pockets. Wish they'd start policing those people.

[Otter]

Thank you. Finally someone answered me.

I thought he was out with the Ps, guess not. Donations? for what? Lee said he had money. I understand there are others asking for donations on the behalf of the murderer even though it is going in their own pockets. Wish they'd start policing those people.

I finally clicked and there's nothing about SP. Even checked the site map. IIRC, the donations were for the "investigation". Its curious that he's still listed on the P's site, but so is the CCADP. But I suppose once you're dealing with double murderers, your social circle changes a bit.

The P's are still looking for donations:

You can help financially with one of the following:

The ongoing investigation
Scott's commissary account and quarterly shipment
Travel expenses to visit Scott
Appellate costs
To donate to the Peterson Family Fund use the PayPal button below.


Nothing would be tax deductible for a donor, and I believe that after a certain amount, the P's would have to declare the money as income in some form and pay any taxes due. I doubt this has occurred. :)

Odd name though, why wouldn't they call it the SP Defense Fund or something? The travel expenses could be for a nice little vacation to Pebble Beach, conveniently on the way to SQ. Oh well, none of my concern as to how people want to spend their money.

[Mark]

I finally clicked and there's nothing about SP. Even checked the site map. IIRC, the donations were for the "investigation". Its curious that he's still listed on the P's site, but so is the CCADP. But I suppose once you're dealing with double murderers, your social circle changes a bit.

The P's are still looking for donations:

You can help financially with one of the following:

The ongoing investigation
Scott's commissary account and quarterly shipment
Travel expenses to visit Scott
Appellate costs
To donate to the Peterson Family Fund use the PayPal button below.


Nothing would be tax deductible for a donor, and I believe that after a certain amount, the P's would have to declare the money as income in some form and pay any taxes due. I doubt this has occurred. :)

Odd name though, why wouldn't they call it the SP Defense Fund or something? The travel expenses could be for a nice little vacation to Pebble Beach, conveniently on the way to SQ. Oh well, none of my concern as to how people want to spend their money.
Good info. Thanks.

Thanks for being so kind. I've gotten two infractions for asking truthful questions.

[Otter]

Good info. Thanks.

Thanks for being so kind. I've gotten two infractions for asking truthful questions.


I'm sorry. :( I've gotten some from a person that doesn't even post. ;)

[Mark]

I'm sorry. :( I've gotten some from a person that doesn't even post. ;)

I heard that was happening here. That is why I have it as my signature line. Maybe the moderator should put a stop to that childish game. :seeya:

[adnoid]

There are some things I am curious to know about and obviously Scott knew something did not belong in his house, but never was tested. This is the cup on the counter. This was mentioned to Mark by Scott in order for Mark to have mentioned it in court...What about the red boots found on the porch? Amber owned a pair. Where are the red boots now?...

Well, this breaks the whole case wide open for me. After all, Geragos testified that Ron, Sharon, Brent, Amy, Dirty, Skeeter and others drank coffee, so they must be responsible. And I'm sure Victor loaned those boots to Amber before she left them at the house! I predict Scott will be out of prison before the end of the day!

[Lavindar]

accordin2me, sorry it has been a while since I have been on here, but I have been busy this summer with my kids. I also have been putting up my own web page to support the facts of the trial on Scott.

Your right! Scott taking the stand would not have mattered.He could have cried through out the trial and it would not have mattered. He gave the jurors their final words in what to say.

There are some things I am curious to know about and obviously Scott knew something did not belong in his house, but never was tested. This is the cup on the counter. This was mentioned to Mark by Scott in order for Mark to have mentioned it in court.

The cup was never tested. Why?

Kim M had used a coffe cup when breaking into Scott's house. Her co-workers said she never was without a cup of coffee, and there was a cup on Scott and Laci's counter. Coul this be the cup Kim drank out of or a match to one she has? Is this a fair question to be asking? If not, why?

What about the red boots found on the porch? Amber owned a pair. Where are the red boots now?GERAGOS: And 8U, 1 through 12, this accurately reflects the photos that were taken on the 18th at the second search warrant?
GROGAN: I believe so, yes, sir.
GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically the one that I've got up here, this would have been the 24th, is that correct?
GROGAN: That's correct.
GERAGOS: And this is the book that, the phone we talked about before, correct?
GROGAN: Correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. There's, this mug, as far as you know, nobody ever took that for testing, is that correct?
GROGAN: That's correct.
http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Timelines/Trial%20Transcripts/Trial%20Craig%20Grogan%20Defense%20CIC.htm

Maybe because Scott said there was nothing out of order and the cup matched laci's dishes?

First of all there is NO PORCH at 523 Covena. There was a picture of the mop and bucket that Scott said he set outside the front door that day and there are no red boots there.

[Miss Bootsie]

Well, this breaks the whole case wide open for me. After all, Geragos testified that Ron, Sharon, Brent, Amy, Dirty, Skeeter and others drank coffee, so they must be responsible. And I'm sure Victor loaned those boots to Amber before she left them at the house! I predict Scott will be out of prison before the end of the day!

Oh, golly gee, thanks for letting me know.:eek:
I will stay glued to the tube for future updates.

[Lavindar]

accordin2me, sorry it has been a while since I have been on here, but I have been busy this summer with my kids. I also have been putting up my own web page to support the facts of the trial on Scott.

Your right! Scott taking the stand would not have mattered.He could have cried through out the trial and it would not have mattered. He gave the jurors their final words in what to say.

There are some things I am curious to know about and obviously Scott knew something did not belong in his house, but never was tested. This is the cup on the counter. This was mentioned to Mark by Scott in order for Mark to have mentioned it in court.

The cup was never tested. Why?

Kim M had used a coffe cup when breaking into Scott's house. Her co-workers said she never was without a cup of coffee, and there was a cup on Scott and Laci's counter. Coul this be the cup Kim drank out of or a match to one she has? Is this a fair question to be asking? If not, why?

What about the red boots found on the porch? Amber owned a pair. Where are the red boots now?

GERAGOS: And 8U, 1 through 12, this accurately reflects the photos that were taken on the 18th at the second search warrant?
GROGAN: I believe so, yes, sir.
GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically the one that I've got up here, this would have been the 24th, is that correct?
GROGAN: That's correct.
GERAGOS: And this is the book that, the phone we talked about before, correct?
GROGAN: Correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. There's, this mug, as far as you know, nobody ever took that for testing, is that correct?
GROGAN: That's correct.
http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Timelines/Trial%20Transcripts/Trial%20Craig%20Grogan%20Defense%20CIC.htm

Please site your source that Amber had red boots.

[adnoid]

Please site your source that Amber had red boots.

She didn't - she left them at Scott's house!!! Free Scott!*














*One free Scott with the purchase of one Scott of equal or greater value at regular price. Limit one free Scott per household every 30 days. No substitutions. Cannot be redeemed for cash.

[Miss Bootsie]

accordin2me, sorry it has been a while since I have been on here, but I have been busy this summer with my kids. I also have been putting up my own web page to support the facts of the trial on Scott.

Your right! Scott taking the stand would not have mattered.He could have cried through out the trial and it would not have mattered. He gave the jurors their final words in what to say.

There are some things I am curious to know about and obviously Scott knew something did not belong in his house, but never was tested. This is the cup on the counter. This was mentioned to Mark by Scott in order for Mark to have mentioned it in court.

The cup was never tested. Why?

Kim M had used a coffe cup when breaking into Scott's house. Her co-workers said she never was without a cup of coffee, and there was a cup on Scott and Laci's counter. Coul this be the cup Kim drank out of or a match to one she has? Is this a fair question to be asking? If not, why?

What about the red boots found on the porch? Amber owned a pair. Where are the red boots now?

GERAGOS: And 8U, 1 through 12, this accurately reflects the photos that were taken on the 18th at the second search warrant?
GROGAN: I believe so, yes, sir.
GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically the one that I've got up here, this would have been the 24th, is that correct?
GROGAN: That's correct.
GERAGOS: And this is the book that, the phone we talked about before, correct?
GROGAN: Correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. There's, this mug, as far as you know, nobody ever took that for testing, is that correct?
GROGAN: That's correct.
http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Timelines/Trial%20Transcripts/Trial%20Craig%20Grogan%20Defense%20CIC.htm

Ummm, What do you mean - "Kim used a coffee cup when breaking into Scott's house"?

[cookiewench]

Sassie, there is no evidence at all that the mug wasn't Scott's, or that Scott ever said it wasn't supposed to be there.

That's just more Geragos wordplay, to try to plant ideas in people's head.

[Lavindar]

I would like to see a source for this also:





Kim M had used a coffe cup when breaking into Scott's house. Her co-workers said she never was without a cup of coffee, and there was a cup on Scott and Laci's counter.

When did Kim's co-workers testify? Date please. And for the prosecution or defense?

Coul this be the cup Kim drank out of or a match to one she has? Is this a fair question to be asking? If not, why?[/COLOR] WHY??? Because that cup was there on the 24rthi of December. Kim did not break in until January - how could it have been Kim's cup? It also matched Laci's dishes

[enlightenme]

I'm flabbergasted! Red boots and a coffee cup could break this case wide open!

;)

[attorneywan2be]

accordin2me, sorry it has been a while since I have been on here, but I have been busy this summer with my kids. I also have been putting up my own web page to support the facts of the trial on Scott.

Your right! Scott taking the stand would not have mattered.He could have cried through out the trial and it would not have mattered. He gave the jurors their final words in what to say.

There are some things I am curious to know about and obviously Scott knew something did not belong in his house, but never was tested. This is the cup on the counter. This was mentioned to Mark by Scott in order for Mark to have mentioned it in court.

The cup was never tested. Why?

Kim M had used a coffe cup when breaking into Scott's house. Her co-workers said she never was without a cup of coffee, and there was a cup on Scott and Laci's counter. Coul this be the cup Kim drank out of or a match to one she has? Is this a fair question to be asking? If not, why?

What about the red boots found on the porch? Amber owned a pair. Where are the red boots now?

GERAGOS: And 8U, 1 through 12, this accurately reflects the photos that were taken on the 18th at the second search warrant?
GROGAN: I believe so, yes, sir.
GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically the one that I've got up here, this would have been the 24th, is that correct?
GROGAN: That's correct.
GERAGOS: And this is the book that, the phone we talked about before, correct?
GROGAN: Correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. There's, this mug, as far as you know, nobody ever took that for testing, is that correct?
GROGAN: That's correct.
http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Timelines/Trial%20Transcripts/Trial%20Craig%20Grogan%20Defense%20CIC.htm


Hi Sassie..

I have never heard of the red boots!!..it's not in the evidence...that could be a false rumor...what's your source on that?

As to the mug, I did hear about it and Geragos asked Letsinger if he ever asked Scott about it..however, as far as I know, they took pictures late in the evening, so there is a possibility the mug got there when neighbors were serving coffee to the family and maybe to the police...I think the pictures were taken after most of the neighbors had already left..so it's quite possible they simply forgot that mug in the house..

[Lavindar]

Hi Sassie..

I have never heard of the red boots!!..it's not in the evidence...that could be a false rumor...what's your source on that?

As to the mug, I did hear about it and Geragos asked Letsinger if he ever asked Scott about it..however, as far as I know, they took pictures late in the evening, so there is a possibility the mug got there when neighbors were serving coffee to the family and maybe to the police...I think the pictures were taken after most of the neighbors had already left..so it's quite possible they simply forgot that mug in the house.. IIRC neighbors were in teh driveway - only Scott was allowed in on the walkthru

[frydaddy]

I'm flabbergasted! Red boots and a coffee cup could break this case wide open!

;)

Red Boots and a Coffee Cup...sounds like a K.T. Tunstall follow up ditty! "Woo-hoo"

[TopGunner]

I don't recall saying the co-workers testified. I don't remember where I readi it for sure. I think it might have been in a book.

If it was Scott and Laci's mug from the start, then I doubt Marl would ask about it. Scott had to mentione this cup not being his and Laci's. This would be further backed by the police saying, there was no need to test the cup because it belonged to Scott and Laci.

It is not just the cup or the boots. (Which by the way, the boots were first mentioned on ****.) The Tracy tip never was investigated, the bag by Laci, the duct tape on Laci, the gash on Conner, the black substance on Conner, the cement anchors he supposedly made 5 of in one bucket in three days. Ron's alibi, etc. They might have checked into Ron's story about where he was, but did they ask how long he was at each place?


Sassie, the LE, knew where everyone was that day. Amy, Brent, Ron, Sharon, the Sr. P's, everyone.

There was no need to pursue Ron as a suspect because he didn't murder anyone.

[Lavindar]

I don't recall saying the co-workers testified. I don't remember where I readi it for sure. I think it might have been in a book.

If it was Scott and Laci's mug from the start, then I doubt Marl would ask about it. Scott had to mentione this cup not being his and Laci's. This would be further backed by the police saying, there was no need to test the cup because it belonged to Scott and Laci.

It is not just the cup or the boots. (Which by the way, the boots were first mentioned on ****.) The Tracy tip never was investigated, the bag by Laci, the duct tape on Laci, the gash on Conner, the black substance on Conner, the cement anchors he supposedly made 5 of in one bucket in three days. Ron's alibi, etc. They might have checked into Ron's story about where he was, but did they ask how long he was at each place?

Considering that Marl said the mops and buckets were planted by the police, I would not consider her a good source of information. That's media hype. The cup was not deemed to be anything out of the ordinary that night. The police did a walk thru WITH SCOTT and asked him to point out anything out of the ordinary and he did not mention the cup so I think it's pretty safe to believe it belonged there.

The Tracy tip was investigated for two weeks. You are referring to a site that is not allowed to be mentioned here. I read there and there were two different descriptions of the site given by some posters there. One put it on the southwest side of Tracy - the other on the SouthEast side of tracy.

You are of course, referring to the "shantytown" on the top of the hill - which, by the way was NOT visible from the freeway. There were also no vehicles at that site and the tip talked about vehicles there. -

I suggest you read this testimony carefully. It goes into GREAT DETAIL about that particular site and how it has no relation to this case at all.

1) Rick Distaso: Deputy Mears, where do you work?
2) Paul Mears: San Joaquin County Sheriff's Department as a Deputy Sheriff.
3) Rick Distaso: And were you employed in that capacity on January 10th of 2003?
4) Paul Mears: Yes, I was. I was assigned to the Patrol Division as a Training Officer.
5) Rick Distaso: And as part of your duties, were you assigned to help Officer Beffa from the Modesto Police Department investigate a tip that Laci Peterson might be somewhere in San Joaquin County?
6) Paul Mears: Yes, I was. At approximately 5:00 o'clock on the 10th of January, I came in and Sergeant Drayer advised me that they needed someone to respond the Tracy and meet with Officer Beffa and his partner looking in the area for possible sightings of Laci.
7) Rick Distaso: Are you familiar with that area?
8) Paul Mears: Yes, I am. Prior to becoming a Deputy Sheriff with San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office, I worked for Banta Carbona Irrigation District, which covered about 27,000 acres.
9) Rick Distaso: You have been in a lot of these areas in prior job?
10) Paul Mears: Yes, I have.
11) Rick Distaso: As part of your patrol duties, had you been in some of these areas?
12) Paul Mears: When I first came back to patrol, after getting off the training program in 99, I went to the graveyard shift, and I spent two years working the Tracy-Manteca area on patrol.
13) Rick Distaso: Did Officer Beffa bring a tip to you and show you the tip that described some particular area?
14) Paul Mears: Yes. It was a teletype that had come in from, I believe was Highway Patrol, that said that an anonymous citizen had seen Laci in the Tracy area, south of Tracy, being held in a storage container behind two small white houses, with a broken down white truck in front of it.
15) Rick Distaso: Did it give you, Officer Beffa just testified that it was eastbound 205 past Tracy, the first exit or something like that?
16) Paul Mears: Correct.
17) Rick Distaso: Did you look for some areas that might match that?
18) Paul Mears: Yes. It being south of Tracy, you basically have two 205s. One is a business loop 205 that goes through Tracy, which is 11th Street, and the other is the highway that's on the north side of Tracy. We went over to, I met Officer Beffa and his partner at the Denny's on 205 and Tracy Boulevard. We got out a county map and we started looking for roads that met the description.
19) Rick Distaso: Did you find anything?
20) Paul Mears: We found several roads that if somebody was passing through Tracy, they could go through the south part of Tracy and continue on down south.
21) Rick Distaso: And did you look, did you go to those roads and try to investigate those areas?
22) Paul Mears: I took Officer Beffa and his partner down to Lammers Road. We started looking for residences that matched the description. We weren't able do locate any on that report. When I contacted Officer Beffa he advised me that they had to return to the City of Modesto. They had another call that is pending. I told them that I would search as much as I could, and that I would let them know what I found.
23) Rick Distaso: Did you go to some other roads that you thought might have matched the description as given?

[Lavindar]

24) Paul Mears: Yes, sir. After Officer Beffa left, I contacted Sergeant Dorsey and advised him what was going on, at which time he told me that he called Lieutenant Myoya, and they said that I was to be assigned,
25) Mark Geragos: Objection, triple hearsay as to,
26) Judge Delucchi: I think so. Sustained.
27) Rick Distaso: So you contacted your superiors, and did they direct you to continue doing some searches?
28) Paul Mears: Yes, they did. They told me to go ahead and check the area. And then when I had several entrances that were possible, to go ahead pick up my trainee at the time Mr. Gillingwater and another officer, Deputy Stewart and his trainee, they would go back to those houses and search the area
29) Rick Distaso: Did you do that?
30) Paul Mears: Yes, we did. For four days.
31) Rick Distaso: For four days? And then did you find anything during those searches that was related to the Laci Peterson investigation?
32) Paul Mears: No, I did not.
33) Rick Distaso: You mentioned something in your report about a location that's west of the area you have been describing on the Alameda County-San Joaquin County line?
34) Paul Mears: Yes, sir.
35) Rick Distaso: And I think you described in your report as some compound. Before we get into that, this area that we're talking about, is that in the area that the anonymous person had described?
36) Paul Mears: It was at the very north or southwest end of Tracy. It was on Interstate 580.NOTE: this is NOT 205 as described in the tip You can pass by there. If you were driving south, you would not be able to see that are
37) Rick Distaso: So from the highway you can't see this area?
38) Paul Mears: No, you can't. Not until you are about a mile and half, two miles down the road.
39) Rick Distaso: And are you familiar with this area?
40) Paul Mears: The back, I would say nine months prior to this, I had a call of several windows being broken on the 580 highway headed southbound towards LA. And what was happening was somebody was shooting the windows out with marbles from either a paintball gun or a Wrist Rocket.
41) Rick Distaso: A slingshot?
42) Paul Mears: Yes.
43) Rick Distaso: And you referred to as a compound. Can you describe for the jury exactly what it is?
44) Paul Mears: Basically what it is, it's a bunch of shanties and shacks, old trailers that had been abandoned. What I found up there when we went up there to make contact that day was people on probation for drug violations, some people on parole for drug violations. They had fighting roosters in the area, a couple of fighting Pit Bulls. We found marijuana being grown up there. Basically a flop house for drug addicts.
45) Rick Distaso: Okay. And you had gone up there, the last time you had been there prior to January 10th was nine months prior, you said?
46) Paul Mears: Yes.
47) Rick Distaso: That was for this slingshot, or someone shooting something at the cars on the windows?
48) Paul Mears: Correct.
49) Rick Distaso: And when you went up there, did you find the slingshot and a bunch of marbles?
50) Paul Mears: Yes, I did. Probably 10,000 clear glass marbles, and a Wrist Rocket slingshot sitting next to the marbles.
51) Rick Distaso: When you were up there nine months prior was it fairly clear to you how the car windows were getting broke?
52) Paul Mears: Yes. I found a half of a marble in the back of one of the vehicles.
53) Rick Distaso: Okay. And the, other than the searches that you talked about, that you talked about for the four days, did you continue searching in the San Joaquin County area just kind of on your own?
54) Paul Mears: Yes, I did. I'm, I was, at the time I was assigned to graveyard which started a 9:00 o'clock at night, ended at seven in the morning. I was working a lot of overtime at that time. And I would come in between four and 5:00 o'clock and work swing shift until my shift started at 9:00 o'clock. I was assigned to the 8 area, because they did not have an 8 area patrol vehicle, no one assigned to that area at that time. That includes the Tracy area from basically the San Joaquin area up to the Alameda County line, over to the Stanislaus County line, over to Highway 4.
55) Rick Distaso: During the time that you were doing this overtime and continuing search, did you find any information at all related to the Laci Peterson investigation?
56) Paul Mears: No, sir.
57) Rick Distaso: Finally, this trailer park compound area that was on the, is it right on the border of Alameda County and San Joaquin County?
58) Paul Mears: Yes. Half of it is in Alameda, and half of it is in San Joaquin County.
59) Rick Distaso: That's west of Tracy?
60) Paul Mears: Yes.
61) Rick Distaso: To get to that location, to drive to it, what road do you have to take?
62) Paul Mears: I don't know if any of you are familiar with the area. If you know where Altamont Speedway is, you have to take Midway Road, which is in Alameda County.
63) Rick Distaso: And then after that road, how far back is it to this area?
64) Paul Mears: Approximately a mile, mile and a half, maybe.
65) Rick Distaso: Nothing further, your Honor

[Lavindar]

I must add that you access this from the Alameda County side of 580 - which again was NOT the highway given in the tip There were no abandoned vehicles at this site either. This "shantytown" could NOT have been the place talked about in the tip, and LAMMERS avenue which DOES meet the criteria of the tip was a logical place to look given the information in the tip.

[attorneywan2be]

Considering that Marl said the mops and buckets were planted by the police, I would not consider her a good source of information


Who is Marl? I think Sassie meant Mark as in Mark Geragos....it was probably a typo!!

[Lavindar]

Who is Marl? I think Sassie meant Mark as in Mark Geragos....it was probably a typo!!
I believe she mean Marlene

[thinkaboutit]

Who is Marl? I think Sassie meant Mark as in Mark Geragos....it was probably a typo!!

I believe she mean Marlene

The typo makes more sense to me. When did Marlene say the mops and bucket were planted? I think her position was that they were put there by Scott - just like Scott said he did - and there was no evidentiary value to them because they were tested and nothing was found on them.

[Lavindar]

The typo makes more sense to me. When did Marlene say the mops and bucket were planted? I think her position was that they were put there by Scott - just like Scott said he did - and there was no evidentiary value to them because they were tested and nothing was found on them.



Not on her original web site. She clearly said they were planted by the police. Course as the evidence was tested, she backed off that claim

[Lavindar]

Thanks! It wasa typo.
Did Mark say it was not a Peterson cup? I don't believe so. Scott testified he had milk and pizza. Maybe he drank his milk out of a cup,

[thinkaboutit]

Not on her original web site. She clearly said they were planted by the police. Course as the evidence was tested, she backed off that claim


Ohhh...okay - thanks - I didn't know that.

[adnoid]

Not on her original web site. She clearly said they were planted by the police...

That was worth some serious "kharma" points!

[Lavindar]

I didnot know about about the not mentioneing a particular place.You asked me where I heard it. This explains why there are asteriks.

Theyshould have went in the house and in the building.Ifthey were scared then they should have had a lot of others go in with them.
The excuse was just crazy. You don't give up on aninvestigation because of parolees living there.

They did not go in because the supervisor told them not to. It was winter and muddy and the cars wouldn't get there. They would have had to go in on foot. That is way too dangerous to go into an area that DOES NOT MATCH THE DESCRIPTION AND IS IN A TOTALLY DIFFERENT AREA UNABLE TO BE SEEN FROM WHERE THE TIPSTER SAID HE WAS.

THERE WERE ALSO NO VEHICLES ON THAT SITE AND TIPSTER SAID THERE WAS AN ABANDONED VEHICLE THERE. That particular site was on a mountain top and could not be seen except from a private road. If a tipster told you a person was a prison in a house in Bloomington, would you go into a house in Nashville to check it out just cuz you knew "bad" guys used that site?

[TopGunner]

Not on her original web site. She clearly said they were planted by the police. Course as the evidence was tested, she backed off that claim

I remember this Lavindar. I actually remember MANY changes of the "facts" on that site.

[I'mSun]

Not on her original web site. She clearly said they were planted by the police. Course as the evidence was tested, she backed off that claimPerhaps she was confusing this case with OJ's. After all, they both played golf! :tongue:

[Hipcheck]

I didnot know about about the not mentioneing a particular place.You asked me where I heard it. This explains why there are asteriks.

Theyshould have went in the house and in the building.Ifthey were scared then they should have had a lot of others go in with them.
The excuse was just crazy. You don't give up on aninvestigation because of parolees living there.

Are you talking about the compound outside of Tracy?

The tip that was received by the CHP said Laci was in a storage container behind a white house. There were no white houses at this compound. In fact there were no houses period. There were shacks and old trailers.

In order to search those shacks and trailers wouldn't you need a search warrant. I assume the people living there wouldn't have give permission for LE to conduct a search and I don't think you would be able to obtain a search warrant relying on the tip information.

[Lavindar]

Are you talking about the compound outside of Tracy?

The tip that was received by the CHP said Laci was in a storage container behind a white house. There were no white houses at this compound. In fact there were no houses period. There were shacks and old trailers.

In order to search those shacks and trailers wouldn't you need a search warrant. I assume the people living there wouldn't have give permission for LE to conduct a search and I don't think you would be able to obtain a search warrant relying on the tip information.


Not to mention the area was in two separate counties - I would think you would need search warrants from two counties. I don't think a heat sensor detector would be enough to seach a place for a kidnap victim, particularly if people were living there. They had no probable cause to go in - the area did NOT fit the tip, there was no storage container, there were no white houses, there was no abandoned vehicle and it could NOT be seen from where the tipster said he saw it.

[TopGunner]

Perhaps she was confusing this case with OJ's. After all, they both played golf! :tongue:


ROFLMAO! :beer:

[I'mSun]

Not to mention the area was in two separate counties - I would think you would need search warrants from two counties. I don't think a heat sensor detector would be enough to seach a place for a kidnap victim, particularly if people were living there. They had no probable cause to go in - the area did NOT fit the tip, there was no storage container, there were no white houses, there was no abandoned vehicle and it could NOT be seen from where the tipster said he saw it.What possible reason would there be to abduct Laci, take her to Tracy and put her in a container? Makes no sense. Also, if this was true and the tipster really did know something, I think they would have pursued the investigation to get the reward. This is JMO.

[Otter]

:confused: Can you give a link to these allegations? Who are you talking about?

And we're waiting for other links to your other allegations. Just a reminder Sassie. TIA! :seeya:

[TopGunner]

What did the police do? Pick up the phone and make a call? I would much rather go on my intuition rather than on Al's gut.

I would not believe anything that come out of Brocchini's mouth. He called the person from Missouri about the call he made to Sharon and said he didn't mean anything by the call, but yet, this man has a criminal record.

I wouldn't want to go on Al's gut either, but I trust his intuition. :tongue:

What person from Missour that called Sharon? Not sure I'm following you here.

[Lavindar]

What did the police do? Pick up the phone and make a call? I would much rather go on my intuition rather than on Al's gut.

I would not believe anything that come out of Brocchini's mouth. He called the person from Missouri about the call he made to Sharon and said he didn't mean anything by the call, but yet, this man has a criminal record.


Where is this information please.

Your intuition and a dollar might get you a cup of coffee. You are not a detective that I know of and what makes your intuition BETTER than a trained police officers?

[Lavindar]

DISTASO: Can you tell us, just tell us exactly what the tip said.

BEFFA: The tip reads as follows. It was an anonymous call from a cell phone. The tip reads, eastbound 205 at Tracy. Take the first exit, which is the first bridge, which is a county area, and turn right. Said this was not a populated area of town, but rather a county area. Does not know the name of the road. Go down four to five miles. You will see two white houses on left side of the road. In front of the second house is an old abandoned white pickup. Behind the house is a van, as he explained, where you can store feed for horses. They have a pregnant woman there. And he states he recognized her to be Laci. Caller lives two to three hours away from there. Wanted to remain completely anonymous. Doesn't want the reward money. Just wants her to be found. Claims they are abusing and hurting her. Says he saw Laci's picture on the missing persons poster. Just wanted to save her.

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

GERAGOS: Okay. And did he tell you that due to the conditions, that they didn't, because of the situation, that they didn't go in there, that they weren't going to go in there?

BEFFA: I believe at the time I got the voicemail from him, he told me that they hadn't checked it yet. But they were planning to the next night, or something similar to that.

GERAGOS: Did he tell you that the people who lived at this compound were anti law enforcement, known parolees and probation persons?

BEFFA: He told me they were anti law enforcement.

:lol: From that description, there is only one road going south and that is Lammers Road which was checked out.

http://local.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=lammers+rd,+tracy,ca&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=30.819956,65.302734&ie=UTF8&om=1&ll=37.71326,-121.475873&spn=0.120046,0.255089&z=12

[Lavindar]

DISTASO: Can you tell us, just tell us exactly what the tip said.

BEFFA: The tip reads as follows. It was an anonymous call from a cell phone. The tip reads, eastbound 205 at Tracy. Take the first exit, which is the first bridge, which is a county area, and turn right. Said this was not a populated area of town, but rather a county area. Does not know the name of the road. Go down four to five miles. You will see two white houses on left side of the road. In front of the second house is an old abandoned white pickup. Behind the house is a van, as he explained, where you can store feed for horses. They have a pregnant woman there. And he states he recognized her to be Laci. Caller lives two to three hours away from there. Wanted to remain completely anonymous. Doesn't want the reward money. Just wants her to be found. Claims they are abusing and hurting her. Says he saw Laci's picture on the missing persons poster. Just wanted to save her.

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

GERAGOS: Okay. And did he tell you that due to the conditions, that they didn't, because of the situation, that they didn't go in there, that they weren't going to go in there?

BEFFA: I believe at the time I got the voicemail from him, he told me that they hadn't checked it yet. But they were planning to the next night, or something similar to that.

GERAGOS: Did he tell you that the people who lived at this compound were anti law enforcement, known parolees and probation persons?

BEFFA: He told me they were anti law enforcement.

:lol:

I suggest checking your facts before laughing. Your sources are word for word from that site we are not allowed to post here.

[Lavindar]

DISTASO: Can you tell us, just tell us exactly what the tip said.

BEFFA: The tip reads as follows. It was an anonymous call from a cell phone. The tip reads, eastbound 205 at Tracy. Take the first exit, which is the first bridge, which is a county area, and turn right. Said this was not a populated area of town, but rather a county area. Does not know the name of the road. Go down four to five miles. You will see two white houses on left side of the road. In front of the second house is an old abandoned white pickup. Behind the house is a van, as he explained, where you can store feed for horses. They have a pregnant woman there. And he states he recognized her to be Laci. Caller lives two to three hours away from there. Wanted to remain completely anonymous. Doesn't want the reward money. Just wants her to be found. Claims they are abusing and hurting her. Says he saw Laci's picture on the missing persons poster. Just wanted to save her.

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

GERAGOS: Okay. And did he tell you that due to the conditions, that they didn't, because of the situation, that they didn't go in there, that they weren't going to go in there?

BEFFA: I believe at the time I got the voicemail from him, he told me that they hadn't checked it yet. But they were planning to the next night, or something similar to that.

GERAGOS: Did he tell you that the people who lived at this compound were anti law enforcement, known parolees and probation persons?

BEFFA: He told me they were anti law enforcement.

:lol:


There were NO vehicles at the compound. Abandoned vehicles and vehicles that are used for storage don't move eaily. Why should they have the slightest inclination that Laci was at the compount. There were no houses, just trailers and shacks AND no vehicles

[Lavindar]

I don't recall saying the co-workers testified. I don't remember where I readi it for sure. I think it might have been in a book.

If it was Scott and Laci's mug from the start, then I doubt Marl would ask about it. Scott had to mentione this cup not being his and Laci's. This would be further backed by the police saying, there was no need to test the cup because it belonged to Scott and Laci.

It is not just the cup or the boots. (Which by the way, the boots were first mentioned on ****.) The Tracy tip never was investigated, the bag by Laci, the duct tape on Laci, the gash on Conner, the black substance on Conner, the cement anchors he supposedly made 5 of in one bucket in three days. Ron's alibi, etc. They might have checked into Ron's story about where he was, but did they ask how long he was at each place?


A great deal of ron's time was taken up in travel. You can't make a 96-104 trip in 10 minutes. He talked to people at work and at the construction site. Why don't you put this scrutiny on Scott. Because you believe EVERYONE but Scott did it, I think. You can give no reasonable explanation for what you think.

The duct tape was tested which you would know if you read the testimony instead of just posters on that site. The black substance, if you read the transcripts was purple dye from kept (called iodine) that was on his ear. There are pictures of TWO buckets in the evidence photo on CTV. Any other stories you want to try to spread. There were NO red boots by the door as there were evidence pictures taken that night of a mop and bucket - and NO BOOTS

Can you account for exactly how long you talked to someone?

[Lavindar]

A great deal of ron's time was taken up in travel. You can't make a 96-104 trip in 10 minutes. He talked to people at work and at the construction site. Why don't you put this scrutiny on Scott. Because you believe EVERYONE but Scott did it, I think. You can give no reasonable explanation for what you think.

The duct tape was tested which you would know if you read the testimony instead of just posters on that site. The black substance, if you read the transcripts was purple dye from kept (called iodine) that was on his ear. There are pictures of TWO buckets in the evidence photo on CTV. Any other stories you want to try to spread. There were NO red boots by the door as there were evidence pictures taken that night of a mop and bucket - and NO BOOTS

Can you account for exactly how long you talked to someone?
That should read "kelp." And Dr. Peterson described Conner's skin as so fragile it could have PULLED apart on it's own. I posted Dr. PEterson's tesimony earlier and am not going to take the time to do it again.

[deputydi]

DISTASO: Can you tell us, just tell us exactly what the tip said. <snipped from post #147>
Just copying and pasting doesn't get it. Could you please post a link to wherever this came from -- for all I know, you made it up.

[JustMyOpinion]

Brocchini made the comment of his gut telling him Scott had something to do with the crime. My intuition told me Scott was innocent.

.

Brocchini was dispatched to the scene as a crimes against person's detective.
He had been given information by other officers, he walked through the home, searched the vehicles, accompanied Scott to the warehouse, obtained a video-taped statement from Scott. Brocchini was well-aware of statistics on domestic violence/homicide, and Scott's story didn't entirely add up and his demeanor was lacking in urgency & relaxed ( according to Brocchini's notes). Of course his suspicions were aroused, AND, Scott had to be eliminated from suspicion. Although Scott assured Brocchini he would submit to polygraph, he shifted the next day and declined to submit.
As time went on and more evidence was gathered, Scott not only couldn't be eliminated, it became apparent he had motive, means, opportunity, access AND, that he was deceiving police, community & family.....IMO.
Your own intution cannot be compared to the instincts of a trained detective with year's of experience investigating crimes against persons and your intuition would not have been enough to successfully defend Scott at his trial. Scott had a well-resourced criminal defense team, but the State brought a great deal of compelling, circumstantial evidence which proved their case beyond the reasonable doubt of a sworn jury. Scott was not arrested based on intuition or instinct ( there was evidence sufficient to obtain an arrest warrant). Evidence ( not intuition) was required to prove probable cause that he stand trial against the charges. Evidence ( not intuition) was presented at trial. Brocchini was only one witness who testified for the State.

[Lavindar]

The police would not have needed a search warrant to go and check out the place that was described to them. If they saw what was told to them, then they would have had to go to the house to ask questions and if they saw something that would call for concern, then they would have to see about getting the warrant.


This is true. But this place did NOT meet that description as was posted in the testimony earlier. It was on a mountain top, not visible from the road. There were not two houses there - there were trailers and shacks. There were no abandoned vehicles there either. They had no LEGAL probable cause to go in at all.

[JustMyOpinion]

My facts are from Catherine Crier's book.

.

When you get a chance, could you please transcribe the pertinent portion of the book and cite a page number? TIA.

[TopGunner]

Which ones are you wanting? Some of what I said was my opinion, I posted some testimony of some, and some I read in a magazine a long time ago.

I will not post anything else about certain things until I get the page numbers of the bokks and for sure which book it was in.

I am sorry for this and should have done this from the start, but so many people said they have read the books, I assumed they would rememeber what was read.


The page numbers are a good idea Sassie. I've read Crier's book no less than 30 times. It's falling apart, but I know it well. I have no recall of what you're posting so page numbers would be a big help.

[deputydi]

Which ones are you wanting? Some of what I said was my opinion, I posted some testimony of some, and some I read in a magazine a long time ago.

I will not post anything else about certain things until I get the page numbers of the bokks and for sure which book it was in.

I am sorry for this and should have done this from the start, but so many people said they have read the books, I assumed they would rememeber what was read.
Thanks. I would appreciate that also. I remember lots of stuff I read from newspaper articles, tv shows, books, etc -- but a lot of it I remember differently than you do. It would help to have a point of reference other than "I think I read in CCs book . . ."

[Miss Bootsie]

Thank you for sharing, now go readn and stop typing. Don't forget those page numbers

lol :tongue:

[USAHICK]

Sassie don't worry, you're doing a great job here posting.. I enjoy reading your thoughts and posts.


Most likely because you are one and the same.

[One2Snoop]

Most likely because you are one and the same.

I don't think we have to worry about it anymore - FW's taken care of the situation. :beer:

[Mysteri]

I forgot to name one of the mistakes made by the Defense.

Not resting, following the Pros' CIC, was a mistake. Geragos fared better at cross-examination. His CIC was a disaster, and Geragos would have been much better off if, following the Pros' CIC, he would have said, with an air of confidence, "Your Honor, the Defense rests." It would have been a dramatic ending in lieu of a disastrous one.

IMO

True and he was was supremely foolish to underestimate Rick Distaso.

[Mysteri]

This is true. But this place did NOT meet that description as was posted in the testimony earlier. It was on a mountain top, not visible from the road. There were not two houses there - there were trailers and shacks. There were no abandoned vehicles there either. They had no LEGAL probable cause to go in at all.

Not a "mountain top " in Tracy. There isn't one.


imo

[I'mSun]

Not a "mountain top " in Tracy. There isn't one.


imoOne one side of the Altamont is Livermore, what is on the other side? Where is "Mountain House"?

[I'mSun]

Not a "mountain top " in Tracy. There isn't one.


imoActually, there is. The Diablo range This range is largely unpopulated, particularly outside of the San Francisco Bay Area. Major nearby communities include Antioch, Concord, Walnut Creek, Pleasanton, Livermore, and the Central Valley city of Tracy.

[Lavindar]

Not a "mountain top " in Tracy. There isn't one.


imo Tracy is at the foot of the mountains as you come down over the Altamont Pass. You can see that range from Modesto too

[Lavindar]

Not a "mountain top " in Tracy. There isn't one.


imo testimony was that it was half in Alameda County and half in San Joaquin county - sounds like the range the Altamont Pass goes through to me

[Mysteri]

Tracy is at the foot of the mountains as you come down over the Altamont Pass. You can see that range from Modesto too

Right, absolutely no mountain tops in Tracy. It is in the valley.

imo

[Mysteri]

Actually, there is. The Diablo range This range is largely unpopulated, particularly outside of the San Francisco Bay Area. Major nearby communities include Antioch, Concord, Walnut Creek, Pleasanton, Livermore, and the Central Valley city of Tracy.

I know the Diablo Range which borders the Gabilan Range below the Sierra Nevada foothills in the Calaveras and Tuolumne County area.

As you can see the communities are nearby and the mountains aren't part of them. They are in the valley....thus the name Central Valley.


imo

[Lavindar]

I know the Diablo Range which borders the Gabilan Range below the Sierra Nevada foothills in the Calaveras and Tuolumne County area.

As you can see the communities are nearby and the mountains aren't part of them. They are in the valley....thus the name Central Valley.


imo
That does NOT mean you can't see the mountains from Tracy. The tip did NOT say MOUNTAIN TOP anyway and that compound WAS on the mountain top

[Mysteri]

That does NOT mean you can't see the mountains from Tracy. The tip did NOT say MOUNTAIN TOP anyway and that compound WAS on the mountain top

Of course you can see them. We joke that they are the Windmill Hills.
I think the tip was not only bogus but a red herring phoned in by someone in the Peterson camp.

Thanks for the info.

imo

[I'mSun]

I think the tip was not only bogus but a red herring phoned in by someone in the Peterson camp.

imoGASP! I'm in shock! You really think someone from Camp Peterson would do such a deceitful thing?

I totally agree with you! :beer:

[Hey Paula]

GASP! I'm in shock! You really think someone from Camp Peterson would do such a deceitful thing?

I totally agree with you! :beer:

I also agree.

IIRC, the MPD called the Peterson manned tipline (to test their veracity/trustworthiness, IMO) with a tip which was never passed along to them.

IMO

[adnoid]

...IIRC, the MPD called the Peterson manned tipline (to test their veracity/trustworthiness, IMO) with a tip which was never passed along to them...

Which answered any questions they may have had about the Peterson's motives.

[accordn2me]

I also agree.

IIRC, the MPD called the Peterson manned tipline (to test their veracity/trustworthiness, IMO) with a tip which was never passed along to them.
IMOHey, Paula :seeya:

Sometimes....I just need things spelled out for me....what does that mean?

*red wine has started to have strange effect on my understanding processes* :beer: ....i wish we had a wine drinkin icon...but we don't so this will have to do

CHEERS!

[Mysteri]

GASP! I'm in shock! You really think someone from Camp Peterson would do such a deceitful thing?

I totally agree with you! :beer:

:seeya:
When they described the voice as 'disguised' it kind of gave it away!

imo

[Mysteri]

I also agree.

IIRC, the MPD called the Peterson manned tipline (to test their veracity/trustworthiness, IMO) with a tip which was never passed along to them.

IMO

Always happy to see ya , Paula !

They just wanted to get the focus off of Scott and failed at it. He made himself a high profile person of interest with all his posturing.

imo

[Mysteri]

Which answered any questions they may have had about the Peterson's motives.


Exactly!


imo

[Mysteri]

Their deceit confirms they knew Scott killed Laci & Conner and don't care. After all, it is embarassing to have a sociopath on death row. imo

That reminds me of when Catherine Crier mentioned that only two weeks after Laci went 'missing' that there was a phone tape of Jackie asking Scott for Connor's shower gifts and crib because another baby was about to be born into their family.

They said the tape wasn't released it court because it was too 'prejuducial.'
Glad they need it to convict.

Actually they shouldn't have put Jackie on the stand because she was so obviously presenting things not how they truly happened but in the best light she could invent. Anne Bird seems to have concluded that near the end of the trial Jackie went round the twist as well.


imo

[Lavindar]

:seeya:
When they described the voice as 'disguised' it kind of gave it away!

imo Not to mention that it did not fit the description of ANY property that Mears could find on that side of Tracy.

[adnoid]

That reminds me of when Catherine Crier mentioned that only two weeks after Laci went 'missing' that there was a phone tape of Jackie asking Scott for Connor's shower gifts and crib because another baby was about to be born into their family...

I wonder why Geragos didn't want that one played?

[Hey Paula]

Always happy to see ya , Paula !

They just wanted to get the focus off of Scott and failed at it. He made himself a high profile person of interest with all his posturing.

imo

It's always great to see you too, Mysteri !

When one lies and/or misleads in an attempt to deflect, it only brings more attention and focus to that person, making them more suspect than ever.

IMO

[Pampster]

I wonder why Geragos didn't want that one played?

There was another tape that wasn't played, the transcript was on CNN for awhile but then was suddenly removed. In it, Scott told Amber he had nothing to do with Laci's disappearance but he knew who did. Apparently that was also prejudicial. My guess is that the court ordered CNN to remove the transcript from their site.

[USAHICK]

There was another tape that wasn't played, the transcript was on CNN for awhile but then was suddenly removed. In it, Scott told Amber he had nothing to do with Laci's disappearance but he knew who did. Apparently that was also prejudicial. My guess is that the court ordered CNN to remove the transcript from their site.

Amber's book has the majority of the tape phone calls transcripts in it, including this one when he said he didn't do it, but knew who did.

Such an odd statement for an innocent man to make.

[adnoid]

...Such an odd statement for an innocent man to make.

Which is why you didn't hear it from an innocent man.

[deputydi]

Amber's book has the majority of the tape phone calls transcripts in it, including this one when he said he didn't do it, but knew who did.

Such an odd statement for an innocent man to make.
Very odd indeed! So, why hasn't this "innocent" man disclosed the name of the murderer even to this day? I guess he'd rather sit on death row than reveal the name of the person(s) who killed his family.

[Pampster]

Very odd indeed! So, why hasn't this "innocent" man disclosed the name of the murderer even to this day? I guess he'd rather sit on death row than reveal the name of the person(s) who killed his family.

Don't you know? If he revealed the name of the 'real' killer he'd be putting Laci's family in danger. He's protecting them. At least that's the story I've heard from the NGs. According to them he even said as much to Amber on the phone.

[accordn2me]

There was another tape that wasn't played, the transcript was on CNN for awhile but then was suddenly removed. In it, Scott told Amber he had nothing to do with Laci's disappearance but he knew who did. Apparently that was also prejudicial. My guess is that the court ordered CNN to remove the transcript from their site.(my bold)
Really? My guess is that "the court" (where this case was tried), doesn't have jurisdiction over CNN. :shrug:

[Pampster]

(my bold)
Really? My guess is that "the court" (where this case was tried), doesn't have jurisdiction over CNN. :shrug:

Well, excuuuuuse me. Perhaps they requested that the transcript be removed. Sheesh, I said it was only a guess.

[accordn2me]

Well, excuuuuuse me. Perhaps they requested that the transcript be removed. Sheesh, I said it was only a guess.:lol: Sorry! I didn't mean to sound snooty! :punch: Bad acorn!

[Pampster]

:lol: Sorry! I didn't mean to sound snooty! :punch: Bad acorn!

Well....okay. I'm sorry I took it as being snooty if it wasn't mean that way. :rose:

[accordn2me]

Well....okay. I'm sorry I took it as being snooty if it wasn't mean that way. :rose:
It wasn't! I wasn't sure if you were serious...and it surprised me that such a court would have jurisdiction over CNN. But if you say it's so....I'm not really the doubting type. Unless you say SLP is innocent. :beer:

[TopGunner]

Well....okay. I'm sorry I took it as being snooty if it wasn't mean that way. :rose:


Hi Pamster - Acorn is quite a delight around here, as are your posts. I thoroughly enjoy them, hope you stick around. :D

[accordn2me]

Hi Pamster - Acorn is quite a delight around here, as are your posts. I thoroughly enjoy them, hope you stick around. :D

Well, thank you, sweetness! You definitely brighten and spice the place up yourself! :beer:

[TopGunner]

Well, thank you, sweetness! You definitely brighten and spice the place up yourself! :beer:

Aww........shucks. Thanks Acorn! :rose:

[Lavindar]

Amber's book has the majority of the tape phone calls transcripts in it, including this one when he said he didn't do it, but knew who did.

Such an odd statement for an innocent man to make.


ITA - It was beyond odd to me

[Lavindar]

Don't you know? If he revealed the name of the 'real' killer he'd be putting Laci's family in danger. He's protecting them. At least that's the story I've heard from the NGs. According to them he even said as much to Amber on the phone.


My my, such fodder for the NGs

[TopGunner]

What I'd love to know, and we'll never know, is WHY did the P's hire MG in the first place? Of all the high powered, visable, talented defense lawyers "out there", why this joker? He's on TV one minute saying that the bodies washing up where ISP was fishing is the most damning evidence, and that IF he did this, he's a classic sociopath...and the next minute the P's are handing him a million bucks. I wonder if someone went to the P's and suggested MG, or if MG approached them, or if they approached him. Again..........we'll probably never know, but this has always been a question I can't explain in a manner that makes any logical sense.

[deputydi]

What I'd love to know, and we'll never know, is WHY did the P's hire MG in the first place? Of all the high powered, visable, talented defense lawyers "out there", why this joker? He's on TV one minute saying that the bodies washing up where ISP was fishing is the most damning evidence, and that IF he did this, he's a classic sociopath...and the next minute the P's are handing him a million bucks. I wonder if someone went to the P's and suggested MG, or if MG approached them, or if they approached him. Again..........we'll probably never know, but this has always been a question I can't explain in a manner that makes any logical sense.
That's the $65,000 question. You're right -- we'll probably never know. This move was probably the biggest mistake the Petersons will ever make and we all know they have made quite a few.

[Lavindar]

What I'd love to know, and we'll never know, is WHY did the P's hire MG in the first place? Of all the high powered, visable, talented defense lawyers "out there", why this joker? He's on TV one minute saying that the bodies washing up where ISP was fishing is the most damning evidence, and that IF he did this, he's a classic sociopath...and the next minute the P's are handing him a million bucks. I wonder if someone went to the P's and suggested MG, or if MG approached them, or if they approached him. Again..........we'll probably never know, but this has always been a question I can't explain in a manner that makes any logical sense.

I might be able to answer that. This is just rumor. First they approached Chris Pixley (of LKL fame). He wasn't licensed in CA and he steered them to MG. If my son were on trial for his life, I'd do some research and find who had won the most death penalty cases in CA. Apparently, the Petersons prefer the higher profile attorney - evidenced by their choice of appeals lawyers too.

Remember these guys lost the appeal for the Menendez Brothers and there was a lot more opportunity there than with Scott. Dont' forget that Abrams got them a hung jury during the first trial - that tells me that there WAS some doubt in that jury. I didn't see ANY doubt with the Peterson jury at all.

[Lavindar]

My my, such fodder for the NGs
I don't recall his saying anything about protecting laci's family. I thought he meant protecting the PETERSON family. He couldn't have cared less about Laci's family as evidenced by his behavior

[enlightenme]

I might be able to answer that. This is just rumor. First they approached Chris Pixley (of LKL fame). He wasn't licensed in CA and he steered them to MG. If my son were on trial for his life, I'd do some research and find who had won the most death penalty cases in CA. Apparently, the Petersons prefer the higher profile attorney - evidenced by their choice of appeals lawyers too.

Remember these guys lost the appeal for the Menendez Brothers and there was a lot more opportunity there than with Scott. Dont' forget that Abrams got them a hung jury during the first trial - that tells me that there WAS some doubt in that jury. I didn't see ANY doubt with the Peterson jury at all.


I think the Petersons care more about their own reputation (which is now forever ruined), then whether Scott is guilty or not. They just didn't want anything to reflect bad on them.

Remember, they came to Modesto to "prove Scott came from a good family". Yeah, "The Brady Bunch", with exceptions! :)

When Jackie and Lee spouted out during the Victim Impact Statements, it was when Brent said something about Scott crying about his childhood by the pool. Jackie said, "Brent, you know that's not true" and good 'ol Lee shouted, "You're a liar!". Then they both left the courtroom and left their golden boy alone to hear the rest of the victim impact statements all by himself.

Their testimony (testaPHONY) on the stand was laughable. Lee gave Scott money that Jackie didn't know about and visa versa. And all the while there was at least 10 grand in a joint account with Scott, Laci, and Jackie's name on it that NO ONE knew about, I guess!

Unbelievable!

[adnoid]

I think the Petersons care more about their own reputation (which is now forever ruined), then whether Scott is guilty or not. They just didn't want anything to reflect bad on them....

And what a great illustration it was that it is our deeds, not our words, that define us. Consider a case that happened about the same time - Mark Hacking. His family, instead of making excuses and denigrating the victim, the town and the public, convinced him to confess and accept his punishment. Does anyone look down on the Hacking family now? Of course not.

[deputydi]

I might be able to answer that. This is just rumor. First they approached Chris Pixley (of LKL fame). He wasn't licensed in CA and he steered them to MG. If my son were on trial for his life, I'd do some research and find who had won the most death penalty cases in CA. Apparently, the Petersons prefer the higher profile attorney - evidenced by their choice of appeals lawyers too.

Remember these guys lost the appeal for the Menendez Brothers and there was a lot more opportunity there than with Scott. Dont' forget that Abrams got them a hung jury during the first trial - that tells me that there WAS some doubt in that jury. I didn't see ANY doubt with the Peterson jury at all.
I had not heard that before. Isn't it curious that Chris Pixley would recommend an attorney who had nothing positive to say in Scott's defense prior to being hired? I guess he had an epiphany (for all the good it did Scott).

[deputydi]

And what a great illustration it was that it is our deeds, not our words, that define us. Consider a case that happened about the same time - Mark Hacking. His family, instead of making excuses and denigrating the victim, the town and the public, convinced him to confess and accept his punishment. Does anyone look down on the Hacking family now? Of course not.
You're right. I'm sure they love their son and are baffled about why he murdered his wife, but they showed nothing but class through this ordeal.

[Lili007]

I wonder why Geragos didn't want that one played?

I could take a wild guess.

JMO

[Lavindar]

And what a great illustration it was that it is our deeds, not our words, that define us. Consider a case that happened about the same time - Mark Hacking. His family, instead of making excuses and denigrating the victim, the town and the public, convinced him to confess and accept his punishment. Does anyone look down on the Hacking family now? Of course not.
OMG, adnoid. I had forgotten that. The Hackings stepped up to the plate and accepted the truth. They never stopped supporting their son, but they were also sincere enough to adknowledge the truth. They never hid behind false accusations or blaming the victims. Kudos to that family. Now that is CLASS

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Amber's book has the majority of the tape phone calls transcripts in it, including this one when he said he didn't do it, but knew who did.

Such an odd statement for an innocent man to make.
Why would he make that statement?

[Sturgeon_Moon]

(my bold)
Really? My guess is that "the court" (where this case was tried), doesn't have jurisdiction over CNN. :shrug:In the past CNN has done as requested, so as not to lose access.


imo

[accordn2me]

In the past CNN has done as requested, so as not to lose access.


imoI see.

Not to get started on CNN, but I read they have done some really bad things as far as reporting goes. For instance, IIRC, they reported something in foreign affairs knowing full well that it was going to cause their source to get killed. That's just wrong! :flamemad:

[enlightenme]

Why would he make that statement?


IF Laci and Conner's bodies had never been found (and the pesky DNA tests that PROVED Conner was his child), I believe Scott was going to try and use a lie that Laci was pregnant with some other man's baby. Hence his statements of "her baby" and not admitting Conner was his. "I can't tell you everything right now, it would hurt too many people.", etc.

He was going to accuse Laci of being unfaithful, IMO. At least to Amber. I think he was probably going to accuse "the real dad" of being the killer.

JMHO

[Lavindar]

IF Laci and Conner's bodies had never been found (and the pesky DNA tests that PROVED Conner was his child), I believe Scott was going to try and use a lie that Laci was pregnant with some other man's baby. Hence his statements of "her baby" and not admitting Conner was his. "I can't tell you everything right now, it would hurt too many people.", etc.

He was going to accuse Laci of being unfaithful, IMO. At least to Amber. I think he was probably going to accuse "the real dad" of being the killer.

JMHO

Really interesting theory. And one that makes a lot of sense as his mother never referred to Conner in a personal tense either. I wonder if he aready tried out tht theory on his mother

[accordn2me]

Really interesting theory. And one that makes a lot of sense as his mother never referred to Conner in a personal tense either. I wonder if he aready tried out tht theory on his motherOr maybe she tried it out on him.

[Mysteri]

Why would he make that statement?

Such a tease he was ...and yet, perhaps he had assistance. I think his dad was very close to the marina ( at Ann Bird's house ) when Laci and Conner were slipped into the water. Another reason for not needing to tell his dad he had a boat. Lee already knew.

imo

[Luke Davis]

Or maybe she tried it out on him.Or maybe he meant Pasqual?

[Pampster]

IF Laci and Conner's bodies had never been found (and the pesky DNA tests that PROVED Conner was his child), I believe Scott was going to try and use a lie that Laci was pregnant with some other man's baby. Hence his statements of "her baby" and not admitting Conner was his. "I can't tell you everything right now, it would hurt too many people.", etc.

He was going to accuse Laci of being unfaithful, IMO. At least to Amber. I think he was probably going to accuse "the real dad" of being the killer.

JMHO

I agree. I think his original plan was to allow Amber to continue thinking he'd "lost" his wife, but that changed once the story came out in the media. He was planning to tell her, in person of course so she could see him cry, that Laci was involved with another man who was the father of her child. No doubt Scott, being the wonderful and kind person that he is, agreed to remain married to Laci until after the baby was born, probably because of the insurance and so as not to hurt Laci's family.

It's a story that would explain everything, at least in his twisted mind. Of course he wasn't cheating on Laci - they had an agreement, and of course he wasn't cheating on Amber, Laci was his wife in name only. Amber asked him how he was going to explain the baby to her - there you go, it wasn't his. And when he said he'd lost his wife what he really meant was that he'd lost her to another man. ...the man who eventually killed her and the baby.

Poor poor Scott.

[One2Snoop]

OMG, adnoid. I had forgotten that. The Hackings stepped up to the plate and accepted the truth. They never stopped supporting their son, but they were also sincere enough to adknowledge the truth. They never hid behind false accusations or blaming the victims. Kudos to that family. Now that is CLASS

I totally agree Lavindar. I could never imagine walking in their shoes but I have the utmost respect for this family because they did the right thing from the get go. :beer:

[deputydi]

I agree. I think his original plan was to allow Amber to continue thinking he'd "lost" his wife, but that changed once the story came out in the media. He was planning to tell her, in person of course so she could see him cry, that Laci was involved with another man who was the father of her child. No doubt Scott, being the wonderful and kind person that he is, agreed to remain married to Laci until after the baby was born, probably because of the insurance and so as not to hurt Laci's family.

It's a story that would explain everything, at least in his twisted mind. Of course he wasn't cheating on Laci - they had an agreement, and of course he wasn't cheating on Amber, Laci was his wife in name only. Amber asked him how he was going to explain the baby to her - there you go, it wasn't his. And when he said he'd lost his wife what he really meant was that he'd lost her to another man. ...the man who eventually killed her and the baby.

Poor poor Scott.
Sounds reasonable to me.

[TopGunner]

Such a tease he was ...and yet, perhaps he had assistance. I think his dad was very close to the marina ( at Ann Bird's house ) when Laci and Conner were slipped into the water. Another reason for not needing to tell his dad he had a boat. Lee already knew.

imo

Whoa Mysteri, I never thought of this...very interesting. I've always believed the P's knew ISP was guilty. But, and this is a contridiction of sorts, I also believe that in their devastation and shock, they've lashed out so violently and frequently, that they've convinced themselves he was framed, if that makes any sense. Anyway, from the get-go, literally from day one, they did things that showed they thought he did it, or at least COULD HAVE done it by securing him a lawyer, advising him not to take the lie detector test, and suggesting from the get go that ISP "might be framed" because the world knew where he was when Laci went missing etc. The things they did and said wouldn't even occur to me, unless..........well, you know.:rolleyes:

[Lili007]

I could take a wild guess.

JMO

Apologies for quoting my own post, but someone asked me to 'go for it' :) , so I will... explain what I meant.

This is the context:

Originally Posted by Mysteri
That reminds me of when Catherine Crier mentioned that only two weeks after Laci went 'missing' that there was a phone tape of Jackie asking Scott for Connor's shower gifts and crib because another baby was about to be born into their family...

I wonder why Geragos didn't want that one played?

IMO Geragos didn't play it for the reason that it would prejudice the jury and harm his defense strategy. The only thing that tape would have done would be to put on record another building block in the circumstiantial evidence. The last thing the defense would want to do.

As Mysteri reminded us, there was that ludicrous request from Jackie, for which there is no excuse, IMO. Her daughter-in-law "dissappears" and gets killed along with her grandson-to-be, yet all she's interested in is Conner's "gifts and crib" for another baby???

As well as laying a claim to Laci's family-inherited jewellery... IMO, that makes for a very focused (I could use another term here, but I'll refrain) mind channeled in one direction only.

JMO