Scott Peterson's appeal

[Rachel Cory]

One more lie for Distaso's opening statement...Kristen Reed didn't testify...

You are going to hear from a woman by of the name of Kristin Reed, who was a friend of Scott and Laci’s. And what she's going to tell you is on December 24th, she was actually driving to, driving to work that morning. She was running late. She knows exactly what time it was. She drove past the defendant's house, and their house at the end of the street. She lives on Covena, goes down this way. She is driving straight. She looks out of her passenger window, so she drove by just out of habit to see if there was someone there. She said she did that, she is going to tell you she did that because if she had seen the defendant or Laci, she was going to go down and say, "Hi", or something to them since it was Christmas Eve. She knows what their cars look like. She knows exactly what time it was, because I looked down at my clock right before I looked up. And at 9: 39 she did this. She said she looked out the window there, and she says Laci’s car was parked in the drive, and Scott’s truck parked in the drive...

Thank you for posting this, AW2B.

Who lives on Covena? Not Kristen Reed. Is her statement anywhere that I might read it? Do you believe she was on Covena that morning? Where had she been, and how did she come to be traveling south, looking out of her passenger window? If she was there, as Distaso indicates, why didn't she stop? Both vehicles were in the driveway. This entire statement is very intriguing. Geragos should have called her, don't you think? Maybe next time.

[Rachel Cory]

Please steer me to the testimony that proves she WAS in that boat. Without that, it is a lie.
Evidence inadmissible. Obtained illegally. A HUGE mistake.

[Lavindar]

I have been under the impression that this is a discussion board regarding Scott Peterson. I think I addressed all of the issues as I see them in a polite manner.

I am not a part of any orginization or cause and if my style of writing has caused you to think so, then I will take that as a compliment and I thank you for it.

I am just a regular person who has laid out this case and tragedy as I see it.......much like others from the opposing side have laid out their opinions. Just as you have no doubt that Scott will die in prison I am equally convinced that he will not.

I must take issue with this one statement:

Scott is a good man who cheated on his wife. That's where this case begins and ends with nothing in between.

There's a lot of things in between. His wife disappeared and was dumped in the exact place that Scott told the police he went fishing. He continues to woo his girlfriend, while police and good citizens are out searching everywhere for his wife and putting up posters all over the Modesto and outlying areas. People gave up their Christmas dinners to look for her while he was safe and warm and eating dinner and drinking wine with his parents. Isn't that a little twisted? He gets a phone call during his interview with one of the media people. Does he answer it, thinking it might be Laci calling? No, he turns off his phone.

HE sobs and carries on to impress his mistress with his "loss" yet shows no emotions while he is spotted drinking in the sports bar of the Red Lion Inn.

This is a good man? I hope that if I go missing, my spouse shows more concern for me than Scott Peterson ever showed to ANYONE,

[I'mSun]

(snipped)
Scott is a good man who cheated on his wife. IMO, good men, with good moral character, do not cheat on their wives. They don't have affairs, and they don't murder their wives and children, either. A good man makes his family his #1 priority and does everything he can to protect and provide for them.

[adnoid]

Evidence inadmissible. Obtained illegally. A HUGE mistake.

Glad we got that straightened out.

[adnoid]

...Scott is a good man who cheated on his wife...

Dang. I'll be married 20 years in January and I've never cheated on MY wife. Guess I'd better get started if I'm going to ever hope to be considered a good man.

[Rachel Cory]

For many years now, I have read everything that pertains to this trial. I have read the insults, sarcasm, inaccuracies and downright lies. Later, when step by step, the books came out, I saw how often they were quoted by others as being the truth and only the truth with never any sense of how just possibly, the "authors" of these books could have written anything they wanted to knowing full well that nobody in the position to do so would dispute any of it publicly.

As a novice in the legal world, Scott had no idea of what to do, how to handle it or whom to hire. Starting with the premise that he was innocent, one would have thought the rest was going to be easy but as we know now, it wasn't, anymore than it has been easy for all of the rest of the wrongfully convicted and their families. It cannot be ignored that many of these people are now free and completely exonerated of the crimes they were charged with and while nothing can make up for the years they lost or the suffering they and their families went through, they are now free and serve as a testament to what quiet determination and the truth can produce.

People may not like how Scott acted, how he treated Laci with his affair or how he did or did not show emotion. They may not like his taped calls with Amber and how he behaved. They may not like that he inquired about possibly selling the house, furnished or unfurnished or that he sold her car. They may even think he didn't treat Sharon right but not knowing both sides, it would be impractical to make that call. None of it matters anyway when it comes to the question of murder....and a reasonable person could ask themselves, why would he do all of the above if he were in fact guilty? One could think that he should have acted like a grieving husband and played the role to the hilt ( Susan Smith) but he didn't do that for any number of reasons. One, it's not his nature, two, he didn't need to prove to anybody how he felt or three, he didn't feel the need to put on a show when he knew he was innocent no matter what it looked like to the public or anybody else.

Many have taken the words of Anne Bird, Amber Frey, Sharon Rocha and Catherine Crier and made them their own. They have used the so called "facts" in these book to make their case much like the writers of these books did...........but where is the other side of the inaccuracies in these books? You don't have them because they haven't been written and that alone says a lot to me. The others have made a tidy sum from their books and managed to profit in more ways than one from the conviction of an innocent man. Maybe even like prior authors whose targets have now been exonerated.......

What bothers me the most is if one was guilty of murder...or even planning it:

Why would you buy the boat with a paper trail?
Why would you start let alone continue an affair?
Why put the leash on the dog and then NOT make a big deal out of it?
Why if you used anchors, would you not clean up the mess of "circles"?
Why use your computer and look at places where you planned to dump the body?
Why "dump" the body where you would say you were....(or if you weren't going to say that) where witnesses could see you. (and did)?
Why stop at your warehouse in public view with a dead body in your truck?

There is more....but.....one could answer because he is stupid...he made mistakes...but if that's the case, then why was he so brilliant to not leave any evidence anywhere that would prove his guilt? That includes the home, his truck, the boat, the toolbox and his warehouse. The "hair" is the most ridiculous piece of evidence of all so it's not even worth discussing although it has mightily impressed some.

Forums like this one will exist as long as people like to dispute the merits of the case. Since the murder of Laci has been "solved" to most here, I have often questioned in my own mind, why is the interest still so alive and well? I assume for some, it's to make sure Scott Peterson gets his sentence carried out. For myself and others who think he is innocent, I will make the same assumption only in the reverse, we want to see him exonerated and free to go home again where he belongs.

This has been written by me not so much for those who post here but for perhaps the hundreds of others who simply read. All things are not what they seem and all that you read in books is not always true or accurate. Despite the best intentions, the truth does not always come out in a trial and it's for those reasons that we even have the appeals process......to correct the wrong rulings of the judge, errors or misconduct by the DA or defendant's lawyer or jury error. It's also the place to produce new evidence. Unfortunately, it all takes time.

Scott is a good man who cheated on his wife. That's where this case begins and ends with nothing in between. And that is why the appeals process will be successful and prove once and for all that this tragedy took 3 lives.......... with sadly, only one left to be saved.

I have the patience, the time and the persistence to wait this out. For anybody else that feels as I do, don't worry, don't get down, don't let people convince you this is hopeless. It's not. The appeals will be successful and justice will finally be served with Scott a free man. For the rest of you, take comfort in the fact that as Scott walks out of San Quentin, another will take his place who should have been there from the start and then you will finally know who really killed Laci.

EXCALIBUR!!! BRAVO!!!

[I'mSun]

Dang. I'll be married 20 years in January and I've never cheated on MY wife. You ARE a good man. Bravo! :beer:

[adnoid]

EXCALIBUR!!!

Which one?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Bedivere.jpg

http://www.mgmweddingcars.co.uk/Cars/Excalibur1.jpg

I hope you mean the second one. And I quote: "Strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony...you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you...If I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away"

ETA: Link to source. (http://www.garnersclassics.com/qmonty.htm) Not that this will have any effect on Scott's appeal.

[Spencer]

A good man or woman, in my opinion, is not defined by whether or not he or she has ever been unfaithful to their spouse. A whole life is what determines that.

In Scott's case, his entire life was on display and clearly noted was the good life he shared with Laci, her family, his own family, his neighbors, friends, employers and clergy he has known. The only time all of the negative things came out was after the affair was made public...and that's just a simple fact. Prior to that, nobody had anything bad to say about Scott for his entire life. They said these things because he clearly was a good person and remains so to this day.

The business about eating Christmas dinner means nothing. His parents and family were there, people had to eat and they ate.That he was kind enough to extend an invitation to a neighbor to join them shows his consideration, not the lack of it. Answering or not answering a phone, again, what does this prove? It's silly things some point to as some huge sign of his guilt. The bottom line is that whether you hate him or not, there was never any proof that he killed his wife because he didn't.

Scott wasn't "framed" in the traditional way people interpret that word...he was set up to cement the suspicion already surrounding him. The bodies were "placed" there and for obvious reasons. Most you don't buy that for a second and that's fine...but neither do we on the other side buy that he (or anybody else) "dumped" her in the "ocean".

When you take all of the things Scott could have done to avoid any suspicion on himself...why didn't he? Some of these things I mentioned in my earlier post. The simple reason is he had no fear of being charged with a crime he did not commit! Four+ years ago, I would have felt the exact same way. All of the very same things people mention that point to his guilt could be turned around to show these were the actions of an innocent man. If not, why do them? "Stupid" won't work anymore as it won't explain anything that shows guilt. They show innocence through and through.

This was the Perfect Storm of convicting an innocent person. It had all of the elements...media, pretty wife, child on the way, an affair, the betrayed wife's family, TV pundits and 24/7 coverage everywhere. Throw into the mix a final jury who was questionable at best and his fate was sealed. The jury spoke in the deliberation room that's true. But they spoke....a lot......afterwards. Other participants of this case also spoke.....a lot.....after the trial. And then of course there are the books.....

No matter how hard they all tried.........just like you say about Scott, they couldn't help but make mistakes and that's what will end this in the end and set an innocent man free.

[frydaddy]

Every once in a while, you come here and read a post and you realize that some wouldn't have convicted Scott if they watched him commit the murder. Good man...serial liar...cheated on his spouse multiple times...played games with LE and lied to them when Laci needed him to put her first...the barometer of a good man has fallen to a level I find disturbing and disgusting.

[adnoid]

Every once in a while, you come here and read a post and you realize that some wouldn't have convicted Scott if they watched him commit the murder...the barometer of a good man has fallen to a level I find disturbing and disgusting.

Not everywhere, fortunately. I am raising my son to treat women well, I am raising my daughter to expect to be treated well. He will not be a Scott, she will not accept a Scott.

Not that it will have any effect on Scott's appeal.

[Lavindar]

clergy he has known. Clergy testified for him - I must have missed that day. Please provide a source for this clergy.

His parents and family were there

I believe only his parents were there - can you provide a link to other family that was there?

Please provide some evidence they were placed there. The man who picked up Conner's body was afraid to handle it even with gloves on - it was that fragile, yet you say "someone" placed him there. And left no evidence? Is this some kind of miracle that I am not aware of?

[TopGunner]

I have been under the impression that this is a discussion board regarding Scott Peterson. I think I addressed all of the issues as I see them in a polite manner.

I am not a part of any orginization or cause and if my style of writing has caused you to think so, then I will take that as a compliment and I thank you for it.

I am just a regular person who has laid out this case and tragedy as I see it.......much like others from the opposing side have laid out their opinions. Just as you have no doubt that Scott will die in prison I am equally convinced that he will not.

My only issue with your post Spenc is that you have nothing to back it up. No facts, no "real killer", nothing but spins on incremential pieces of the events. Connect the dots...it'll provide you with a crystal clear picture of Scott Lee Peterson committing the planned out cold-blooded murder of his wife and baby.

[frydaddy]

Not everywhere, fortunately. I am raising my son to treat women well, I am raising my daughter to expect to be treated well. He will not be a Scott, she will not accept a Scott.

Not that it will have any effect on Scott's appeal.

I salute you, sir! :patriot:

[TopGunner]

A good man or woman, in my opinion, is not defined by whether or not he or she has ever been unfaithful to their spouse. A whole life is what determines that. And what exactly do you know about his whole life that makes him so great???

In Scott's case, his entire life was on display and clearly noted was the good life he shared with Laci, her family, his own family, his neighbors, friends, employers and clergy he has known. The only time all of the negative things came out was after the affair was made public...and that's just a simple fact. Prior to that, nobody had anything bad to say about Scott for his entire life. They said these things because he clearly was a good person and remains so to this day. You mean prior to that NOBODY KNEW what a liar, cheat, and theif he was, right?

The business about eating Christmas dinner means nothing. His parents and family were there, people had to eat and they ate.That he was kind enough to extend an invitation to a neighbor to join them shows his consideration, not the lack of it. I beg your pardon Spence but when was the last time you entertained over the holiday's while your spouce and child was missing? You are beginning to sound like Jackie. NUTS! Answering or not answering a phone, again, what does this prove? It's silly things some point to as some huge sign of his guilt. The bottom line is that whether you hate him or not, there was never any proof that he killed his wife because he didn't. Once again, blowing off the obvious won't make it so.

Scott wasn't "framed" in the traditional way people interpret that word...he was set up to cement the suspicion already surrounding him. The bodies were "placed" there and for obvious reasons. Most you don't buy that for a second and that's fine...but neither do we on the other side buy that he (or anybody else) "dumped" her in the "ocean". Well, you on the other side have your work cut out for you. Just because five people think the bodies were "placed there" and have absolutely nothing what-so-ever to back this up, again...doesn't make it so. A court of law doesn't care what 5 people "want to think". And let me add that suggesting that murderer was framed is absolutely the most hilarious thing I've ever heard. WHO would frame a fertilizer salesman? And how did over 300 people get in on this magnificent conspiracy? He should have planned the murder a bit more carefully. He shouldn't have kept his boat a secret, shouldn't have left cement debris all over his warehouse - 90 pounds of the stuff unaccounted for. He probably shouldn't have had multiple affairs beginning in the first year of his marriage, and more than likely partying in Paris during his wife's vigil wasn't the more intelligent choice either.

Framed? LOL!

When you take all of the things Scott could have done to avoid any suspicion on himself...why didn't he? Some of these things I mentioned in my earlier post. The simple reason is he had no fear of being charged with a crime he did not commit! Four+ years ago, I would have felt the exact same way. All of the very same things people mention that point to his guilt could be turned around to show these were the actions of an innocent man. If not, why do them? "Stupid" won't work anymore as it won't explain anything that shows guilt. They show innocence through and through. It shows nothing of the kind. He made all those arrogant moves for the same reasons your saying what you've posted here: Because you think people will buy it. Refusing to take a lie detector test - the ONLY one who connected to the case who refused. Getting on national TV and telling Diane Sawyer he told the cops about Amber the FIRST NIGHT...was what? Brillance? Wanting to sell Laci's home and ALL HER BELONGINGS was, ummm, tell me again? He's a sociopath - a true freak of nature. He hung himself, he set himself up, he framed himself.

This was the Perfect Storm of convicting an innocent person. It had all of the elements...media, pretty wife, child on the way, an affair, the betrayed wife's family, TV pundits and 24/7 coverage everywhere. Throw into the mix a final jury who was questionable at best and his fate was sealed. The jury spoke in the deliberation room that's true. But they spoke....a lot......afterwards. Other participants of this case also spoke.....a lot.....after the trial. And then of course there are the books..... You've been watching too many episodes of CSI. It's really not all that complicated, no matter how complicated you try to make it. Allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll roads led to ONE person, and one person only. So what if jurors spoke? So what if anyone wrote a book? Did you happen to notice that all four books - Criers, Frey's, Bird's and Rocha's totally support each other. None of the four books contridict each other AT ALL - and yet they were written by four people who didn't know each other. Uncanny wouldn't you agree?

No matter how hard they all tried.........just like you say about Scott, they couldn't help but make mistakes and that's what will end this in the end and set an innocent man free.

You can have your fantasy - I personally don't care if you need to believe he'll walk, but I know he won't. Everyone knows he won't. Nor should he. He's STONE COLD GUILTY.

[Otter]

Spencer said:

For many years now, I have read everything that pertains to this trial. I have read the insults, sarcasm, inaccuracies and downright lies.

Me too. Want a partial list? Answer yes, and I'll go there, otherwise I won't pervert the truth to suit your fellow advocates' dilusions.

Spencer went on to say:

A good man or woman, in my opinion, is not defined by whether or not he or she has ever been unfaithful to their spouse. A whole life is what determines that.

His whole life is hollow. IMO. His unfaithfulness didn't begin and end with AF, it was serial. Does that make him a murderer? No, but it shows that his world was only HIM, HIM and more HIM. Look at how he has, by one advocates discription, adapted to prison. He's perfectly content. He's well and happy with a jaunty gait.

Don't you see the disconnect? He had an affair, and that's where your thought process stops.

Don't you see the preliminaries? Don't you see the middle? Don't you see the end?

And IMO, its not AF. Amber, Barbara, Chloe, Deborah, etc., etc., etc. It was all HIM, a sick game. The perfect child who never had to walk. The perfect man who never had to put up with something he didn't want. A wife and a child. So he got rid of them ... and at the end of January he would be with them, for a time.

UGH!

I stand in agreement with Adnoid. SP, the sociopath that he is, IMO, learned nothing because IMO, there were no boundaries for him to begin with. As if that would've made a difference in his sick mind.

Enough, the whole thought of him sickens me.

[TopGunner]

:beer:

I agree with you Spencer..IMO, Scott was demonized by the media..there was ZERO evidence he committed any crime..and I firmly believe that the jurors that convicted him were influenced by the false stories spread by the media..I too believe that he will win his appeal..and one day he will be fully exonerated...!

AW2B, this is the most ridiculous statement to date. We have hundreds of posts proving what you say here is utterly untrue, and you participated in the majority of them.

The media had NOTHING to do with convicting him. I certainly wasn't influenced one wit by the media, nor were the jurors...who have made that quite clear.

Rush to judgement, framed, the media convicted him - it's out of vogue. OLD, boring, stale...doesn't work. Will never work for his appeal.

I personally cannot wait - he'll never be heard.

[attorneywan2be]

A good man or woman, in my opinion, is not defined by whether or not he or she has ever been unfaithful to their spouse. A whole life is what determines that.



That is very true Spencer ..no one is perfect but God...Scott has a weakness and he made a huge mistake by having the affair..but that doesn't make him all bad..I personally believe that he is a very kind man...sadly, he is the most misunderstood man on earth....I firmly believe that he loved Laci dearly...and one day, he will be fully exonerated...

Unfortunately, IMO, Mark Geragos didn't investigate his case properly..I think he could have proven that Scott was FACTUALLY innocent..I have no doubt that it will be part of the appeal...

[TopGunner]

That is very true Spencer ..no one is perfect but God...Scott has a weakness and he made a huge mistake by having the affair..but that doesn't make him all bad..I personally believe that he is a very kind man...sadly, he is the most misunderstood man on earth....As all sociopaths are!I firmly believe that he loved Laci dearly... :no: and one day, he will be fully exonerated...

Unfortunately, IMO, Mark Geragos didn't investigate his case properly..I think he could have proven that Scott was FACTUALLY innocent..I have no doubt that it will be part of the appeal...

Right, a million bucks wasn't enough...maybe 2 would have freed him. :patriot:

[attorneywan2be]

Thank you for posting this, AW2B.

Who lives on Covena? Not Kristen Reed.

According to Kristen's statement to Brocchini, she was driving on Covena on Dec 24th around 9:39 am..

You might be thinking of "Martha Aguilar".. she lived on Covena few blocks from Laci's house..she reported seeing Laci walking McKenzie on Dec 24th..

[attorneywan2be]

AW2B, this is the most ridiculous statement to date. We have hundreds of posts proving what you say here is utterly untrue, and you participated in the majority of them.

The media had NOTHING to do with convicting him. I certainly wasn't influenced one wit by the media, nor were the jurors...who have made that quite clear.

Rush to judgement, framed, the media convicted him - it's out of vogue. OLD, boring, stale...doesn't work. Will never work for his appeal.

I personally cannot wait - he'll never be heard.


I guarantee you that the bad publicity and the media circus that surrounded this case will be an appeal issue...

[cookiewench]

How in the world could anyone say that Scott acted the way he did because he was "in no fear of being charged with a crime he didn't commit"?????


He would have had to be in a COMA not to realize that there was a good chance he'd be charged - even long before the bodies washed ashore.

We even have a recording of Grogan (I think it was Grogan) asking Scott to come clean and tell them where he put Laci's body.

They came back again & again with search warrants. He refused to take a lie detector test. There were rumors that Scott's original attorney advised him to confess and plead insanity within weeks of the "disappearance".

Of COURSE he would have expected to be charged. It was just pure ARROGANCE and DETACHMENT FROM REALITY that made him play out in guilty, nonchalant ways.

And even a completely innocent man would be totally NUTS to be so uncaring as to chat on the phone about "Paris" at his wife's vigil.


As I've said before, I'd be more concerned than Scott was if my DOG was missing. And I'd spend a lot more time searching for my dog than Scott ever did for his WIFE and BABY.

[Otter]

That is very true Spencer ..no one is perfect but God...Scott has a weakness and he made a huge mistake by having the affair..but that doesn't make him all bad..I personally believe that he is a very kind man...sadly, he is the most misunderstood man on earth....I firmly believe that he loved Laci dearly...and one day, he will be fully exonerated...

Unfortunately, IMO, Mark Geragos didn't investigate his case properly..I think he could have proven that Scott was FACTUALLY innocent..I have no doubt that it will be part of the appeal...

Oh for crying out loud ... now you are trying to deify him?????

AW2B, I have a question for you besides the one above. Have you ever "love[d] anyone dearly"? If the answer is no, stop right now. If the answer is yes, why would you go to someone else for fulfillment of any sort? I mean ANY way, shape or form. What's in it for you? I myself, would feel guilt and dispair and shame. But that's just me.

[Spencer]

Hello Attorney,

I have found it somewhat amusing that there appears to be so many perfect people in the world.......that quite frankly I didn't even know existed until this case. I think if the truth were known, many, many people here and elsewhere have led imperfect lives.... but for the sake of their arguments against Scott, their flaws cannot be revealed. So, perfect is how they will remain.

Somebody said somewhere that they were raising their son to not be Scott and a daughter to not want to be with a Scott. I found that to be an interesting subject.......I guess one will have to wait until the kids are grown, out on their own and on what level they would confide their deepest secrets with their parents with to be sure if they succeeded in raising their kids correctly. Another mentioned that they felt nothing but distain for a cheating spouse. I think they said they were happily married for a number of years and had never cheated. I too could attest to that.......just as I assume Laci would have. The point is none of us really knows this for a fact, do we? We are merely stating what we "feel" and "know" about our spouse........but we could never say with any certainty that it's a fact.

Yet another asked if I had eaten a dinner or had company (or words to that effect) when my spouse had just died...or was missing. My answer is yes, I have but I didn't kill them. I also inquired about the life insurance available the next business day, but I didn't kill them for that either. There is a variety of reasons why people act and do the things they do under stress and situations they normally would not encounter......but it's nobody's business no matter what.

The comments here and elsewhere are all valid I suppose depending on what side of the fence one is on. I want facts and nothing but facts and this trial did not present any, not a single one. I am also not naive enough to post here or anywhere else and pretend that my life or those of my loved ones are perfect and without fault. For those that do, they are simply reminding me of what a perfect world we must live in...........but one that I must have missed.

To the next comment I remember seeing....that some would vote not guilty even if the murder took place in front of us, is only to be defended by not responding at all. It's absurd.

God is the only one to judge Attorney, you're right. But it can't go unsaid that He has a plan for all of us.....and that includes Scott. It won't be the planned ending many here hope for......but it will change their lives forever in how they look at the perfect world they thought they lived in.

I have to end with my favorite saying: "There but for the grace of God,go I.................

[Otter]

Spencer said:

Hello Attorney

She's a wannabe ... by virtue of her nic. :)


I choose to skip what IMO is nonsense and will go straight to this:

I have to end with my favorite saying: "There but for the grace of God,go I.................

Funny that you would say that. Do you know where that is in Scripture? Do you know who is saying that and in what context? Its actually not scriptural, but the gist is. And yikes ... if you only knew what your "favorite saying" really meant ... especially from your POV.

UGH!!!!

Spencer, I appreciate your "politeness" ... but its as hollow as SP is. You want your daughter to be cheated on? Your son to be a cheater? I'm not saying murderer here, but just decency and respect. IMO, a foreign concept to you.

Yet another asked if I had eaten a dinner or had company (or words to that effect) when my spouse had just died...or was missing. My answer is yes, I have but I didn't kill them.

I don't even know what this means. I don't think I want to understand what this means. :eek:

[I'mSun]

Unfortunately, IMO, Mark Geragos didn't investigate his case properly..I think he could have proven that Scott was FACTUALLY innocent..I have no doubt that it will be part of the appeal...Unless someone comes up with some really good evidence that was not presented at the trial, it isn't going to happen. The appeal will be denied. Scott received a fair trial and he was convicted of murder.

[adnoid]

...this trial did not present any, not a single one...

Not even a molecule, I'm sure. Gotta love the ignore list.

Not that it will help Scott's appeal.

[attorneywan2be]

Oh for crying out loud ... now you are trying to deify him?????

AW2B, I have a question for you besides the one above. Have you ever "love[d] anyone dearly"? If the answer is no, stop right now. If the answer is yes, why would you go to someone else for fulfillment of any sort? I mean ANY way, shape or form. What's in it for you? I myself, would feel guilt and dispair and shame. But that's just me.

I'm sorry but your first question is ridiculous...I stated that he is not perfect..I do not expect anyone to be perfect but God...

I would never cheat on someone I love..I would never cheat on my husband even if the marriage is heading to divorce...I will respect and honor my marriage vows until the divorce is final..however, you and I are not Scott..each person is different..each person has their faults and their virtues...IMO, one mistake doesn't erase everything else one did...and by all accounts, Scott was kind to Laci..

IMO, you are only focusing on his mistake..I'm focusing on Scott as a whole with both his faults and virtues..that's why I believe that Amber's tapes should not have been allowed because they are highly prejudicial and have zero evidentiary value as to the murder..

[adnoid]

...you and I are not Scott...

I know I'm not, and I'm so happy about that.

...one mistake doesn't erase everything else one did...

OK, how many times would I have to put the seat down to cancel out a roll in the hay with some gal down the road? 10? 20?

Amazing.

[I'mSun]

..each person is different..each person has their faults and their virtues...IMO, one mistake doesn't erase everything else one did...
The one mistake Scott made (as you claim) isn't what put him on death row. Scott was sentenced to die for murdering his wife and unborn son.

Your claim of Scott being such a nice guy isn't help his appeal.

[I'mSun]

I guarantee you that the bad publicity and the media circus that surrounded this case will be an appeal issue...I think you are sadly mistaken. The grounds for appeal re the issues you mentioned just aren't there. The appeal will be denied, IMO.

[attorneywan2be]

The one mistake Scott made (as you claim) isn't what put him on death row. Scott was sentenced to die for murdering his wife and unborn son.

Your claim of Scott being such a nice guy isn't help his appeal.

I strongly disagree, IMO, that one mistake "the affair" is precisely what convicted him..there was ZERO evidence he committed a crime...the medical examiner was not able to determine the cause of death..the prosecution didn't prove that the bodies washed ashore..!

I think the lack of evidence to support the verdict will be an appeal issue..

[Wearing A Halo]

Spencer said:



She's a wannabe ... by virtue of her nic. :)


I choose to skip what IMO is nonsense and will go straight to this:



Funny that you would say that. Do you know where that is in Scripture? Do you know who is saying that and in what context? Its actually not scriptural, but the gist is. And yikes ... if you only knew what your "favorite saying" really meant ... especially from your POV.

UGH!!!!
Spencer, I appreciate your "politeness" ... but its as hollow as SP is. You want your daughter to be cheated on? Your son to be a cheater? I'm not saying murderer here, but just decency and respect. IMO, a foreign concept to you.



I don't even know what this means. I don't think I want to understand what this means. :eek:

Hi Otter,

So totally ironic. I have said it before, especially to one NG poster who shall be nameless (cough, cough, avos, cough) just how ironic the nonsense is spewed just to want to set 'DRISP the martyr' free.

[Lavindar]

I think you are sadly mistaken. The grounds for appeal re the issues you mentioned just aren't there. The appeal will be denied, IMO. The media circus was created by Hollywood Mark for the most part imo

[I'mSun]

I strongly disagree, IMO, that one mistake "the affair" is precisely what convicted him..there was ZERO evidence he committed a crime...the medical examiner was not able to determine the cause of death..the prosecution didn't prove that the bodies washed ashore..!

I think the lack of evidence to support the verdict will be an appeal issue..First, you don't need a cause of death. After finding the bodies it was apparent they were no longer living. Again, it was not "the affair' that convicted Scott. It was all the evidence, and it was also Scott himself, that led to his conviction. And here is something else: Even with their own experts, the defense couldn't prove he didn't do it. Why? Because it was so obvious Scott murdered Laci and Conner.

[I'mSun]

The media circus was created by Hollywood Mark for the most part imoJust one more thing Mark did that didn't work. :shrug:

[cookiewench]

Another mentioned that they felt nothing but distain for a cheating spouse. The point is none of us really knows this for a fact, do we? We are merely stating what we "feel" and "know" about our spouse........but we could never say with any certainty that it's a fact.

Yet another asked if I had eaten a dinner or had company (or words to that effect) when my spouse had just died...or was missing. My answer is yes, I have but I didn't kill them.

I have to end with my favorite saying: "There but for the grace of God,go I.................

Some things are just too much to not comment on.

If Scott was just an ordinary cheater, he wouldn't even be worth discussing.

The point that makes his cheating so extremely hideous is the fact that when his pregnant wife was missing and presumably 1. abducted 2. being raped and tortured, or 3. had been already murdered along with the baby - SCOTT DIDN'T MISS A BEAT.

Laci & Conner's predicament didn't even grab his attention enough to make him forget about Amber. In fact, he treated in like a golden opportunity.

And you had dinner while your spouse had just died......or was missing? Which was it? Had your pregnant, 27-year-old spouse just disappeared off the street? Did you invite the neighbors over the next day, pop open some wine, and act nonchalant and happy?


The "Grace Of God" comment is just the icing on the cake.

Do you honestly believe that people who don't lie, cheat (or murder) do so by some special form of Grace? They don't. They do it because they are decent people.

[TopGunner]

I strongly disagree, IMO, that one mistake "the affair" is precisely what convicted him..there was ZERO evidence he committed a crime...the medical examiner was not able to determine the cause of death..the prosecution didn't prove that the bodies washed ashore..!

I think the lack of evidence to support the verdict will be an appeal issue..

Hola AW!

I'm so curious as to what you base your opinion on, since every single juror said the affair had nothing to do with the conviction. I will add myself here as well. His affair had NOTHING to do with my belief that he murdered his family.


I guess this goes back to just tossing everything at the wall to see what sticks. We can all say whatever we want, but if it's based on nothing, the results will be just that: nothing.

[TopGunner]

Hello Attorney,

I have found it somewhat amusing that there appears to be so many perfect people in the world.......that quite frankly I didn't even know existed until this case. I think if the truth were known, many, many people here and elsewhere have led imperfect lives.... but for the sake of their arguments against Scott, their flaws cannot be revealed. So, perfect is how they will remain.

Somebody said somewhere that they were raising their son to not be Scott and a daughter to not want to be with a Scott. I found that to be an interesting subject.......I guess one will have to wait until the kids are grown, out on their own and on what level they would confide their deepest secrets with their parents with to be sure if they succeeded in raising their kids correctly. Another mentioned that they felt nothing but distain for a cheating spouse. I think they said they were happily married for a number of years and had never cheated. I too could attest to that.......just as I assume Laci would have. The point is none of us really knows this for a fact, do we? We are merely stating what we "feel" and "know" about our spouse........but we could never say with any certainty that it's a fact.

Yet another asked if I had eaten a dinner or had company (or words to that effect) when my spouse had just died...or was missing. My answer is yes, I have but I didn't kill them. I also inquired about the life insurance available the next business day, but I didn't kill them for that either. There is a variety of reasons why people act and do the things they do under stress and situations they normally would not encounter......but it's nobody's business no matter what.

The comments here and elsewhere are all valid I suppose depending on what side of the fence one is on. I want facts and nothing but facts and this trial did not present any, not a single one. I am also not naive enough to post here or anywhere else and pretend that my life or those of my loved ones are perfect and without fault. For those that do, they are simply reminding me of what a perfect world we must live in...........but one that I must have missed.

To the next comment I remember seeing....that some would vote not guilty even if the murder took place in front of us, is only to be defended by not responding at all. It's absurd.

God is the only one to judge Attorney, you're right. But it can't go unsaid that He has a plan for all of us.....and that includes Scott. It won't be the planned ending many here hope for......but it will change their lives forever in how they look at the perfect world they thought they lived in.

I have to end with my favorite saying: "There but for the grace of God,go I.................


Oh blah blah blah. You sound like you want to date the man, not defend him. You have not added one single statement that points to innocence. :no:

[frydaddy]

Oh blah blah blah. You sound like you want to date the man, not defend him. You have not added one single statement that points to innocence. :no:

Good call...I do have to admit...I wondered if the OP needed a cigarette after a couple of the posts!

[deputydi]

I guarantee you that the bad publicity and the media circus that surrounded this case will be an appeal issue...

No, it won't. The key issue on the media thing is whether or not it was fairly presented. On every show I saw the DEFENSE position was represented as well as the prosecution. Look at the newspaper and tv news -- they always included statements that said "Peterson maintains his innocence" or "according to a family representative" or something like that. The fact that it received lots of attention won't get Scott a free pass -- or another trial.

[deputydi]

Spencer's description of Scott as a "good man" is, to me, disgusting and an insult to every really good man out there! If this man's behavior indicates an adoring, loving relationship to you, I consider that pathetic. You really need to raise your moral standards.

Whether anyone believes Scott is innocent or guilty, I honestly don't see how anyone other than his parents can think of him as a "good man". A lot of people were fooled by the surface behavior they saw, but that is typical of a lot of sleazy people. They are good at hiding things they don't want others to know about and they are good at it.

If Spencer's idea of an adoring, loving marriage is typified by what we now know about Scott Lee Peterson -- I don't want it.

[Buckethead]

Spencer's description of Scott as a "good man" is, to me, disgusting and an insult to every really good man out there! If this man's behavior indicates an adoring, loving relationship to you, I consider that pathetic.
<snipped>

ITA, especially considering SP was a serial cheater.

[USAHICK]

Good call...I do have to admit...I wondered if the OP needed a cigarette after a couple of the posts!


ROFLMAO :lol: :lol: :lol: :beer:

[Miss Bootsie]

Good call...I do have to admit...I wondered if the OP needed a cigarette after a couple of the posts!

...http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/rofl.gif

[ekg]

Some tapes were played for the defense's purposes. My favorite was the one played to explain (excuse) why Scott said, "F___ you, Rita Crosby!" It was because Amber was upset at Rita for mentioning her nude pics on her show. That Scott, sticking up for his girlfriend like that! What a guy! :tongue:

IIRC that one and the full Brent call were the only ones that the Def was allowed to play.. Only the DA was allowed to play what 'snippet' he wanted..

from MG's motion for a new trial

Undeterred, the prosecution presented at trial a series of phone calls between the defendant and his family and friends none of which were related to the actual issue of whether or not the defendant committed the crime. For example, one of the prosecution’s chief arguments was that on January 10, 2003, Mr. Peterson was on phone calls with several friends and family members (including his mother) and told them he was in Bakersfield when he was in fact 150 miles away in Gilroy, California. Although the prosecution could not come up with a plausible theory as to why this had any connection to the disappearance of Mr. Peterson’s wife, it allowed the prosecution to repeatedly argue that he lied to his own mother. This “evidence” did nothing more than to ratchet up the personal animus against the defendant which was obviously the intent all along.

98

Further exacerbating the situation was the refusal to allow the defense to submit tapes demonstrating strong character traits by the defendant. Such tapes - where the defendant talked to his brother-in-law of his love and affection for his wife - were rejected as being irrelevant.

[aingael]

IIRC that one and the full Brent call were the only ones that the Def was allowed to play.. Only the DA was allowed to play what 'snippet' he wanted..

from MG's motion for a new trial


Goes to show state of mind.

Pure and simple and does explain a lot.

[I'mSun]

Good call...I do have to admit...I wondered if the OP needed a cigarette after a couple of the posts!ROFLMAO!!!!!!! :beer:

[attorneywan2be]

No, it won't. The key issue on the media thing is whether or not it was fairly presented. On every show I saw the DEFENSE position was represented as well as the prosecution. Look at the newspaper and tv news -- they always included statements that said "Peterson maintains his innocence" or "according to a family representative" or something like that. The fact that it received lots of attention won't get Scott a free pass -- or another trial.

Convictions have been reversed due to pre-trial publicity and media circus atmosphere..."Dr. Sam Sheppard" case comes to mind..

IMO, The defense position was represented on shows only to mock that position and make fun of the idea that Scott Peterson was innocent...there is no question Scott was demonized by the media..! there was a huge billboard that was visible from the freeway and it was fairly close to the court depicting a picture of Scott in his jail uniform..."Man or monster?"..etc..etc..etc..

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&linkurl=http%3a//www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/gvpt339&graphurl=http%3a//wsrv.clas.Virginia.EDU/%7eljs/images/smflag.gif&vol=384&invol=333

[Lavindar]

No, it won't. The key issue on the media thing is whether or not it was fairly presented. On every show I saw the DEFENSE position was represented as well as the prosecution. Look at the newspaper and tv news -- they always included statements that said "Peterson maintains his innocence" or "according to a family representative" or something like that. The fact that it received lots of attention won't get Scott a free pass -- or another trial.
There was always someone from the defense camp commenting - Lee and Jackie even went on an interview with Barbara Walters - VIOLATING A GAG ORDER. I don't remember Sharon on Ron going on a national TV program and violating the gag order.

[USAHICK]

There was always someone from the defense camp commenting - Lee and Jackie even went on an interview with Barbara Walters - VIOLATING A GAG ORDER. I don't remember Sharon on Ron going on a national TV program and violating the gag order.

You don't remember it Lavindar, because it didn't happen. They didn't even comment when Geragoss put a headless/arm&legless body in the boat for the world to see (he should be locked up with the killer for that move).

I love Delucchi. He knew exactly how this was going to play out, and purposely gave the defense enough rope to hang themselves (which they did). He blocked every effort Geragos made to create cause for appeal. He's a very wise and experienced Judge.

[Lavindar]

You don't remember it Lavindar, because it didn't happen. They didn't even comment when Geragoss put a headless/arm&legless body in the boat for the world to see (he should be locked up with the killer for that move).

I love Delucchi. He knew exactly how this was going to play out, and purposely gave the defense enough rope to hang themselves (which they did). He blocked every effort Geragos made to create cause for appeal. He's a very wise and experienced Judge.


Thanks for reminding me. Sometimes I really don't remember, but I didn't recall any interviews even in the local media by Sharon, Ron, and/or Dennis AFTER the gag order. It's too bad that the Prosecution NEVER gets any appeals - it's only the defense that ever gets the opportunity for "do-overs"

[margaritaville]

There was always someone from the defense camp commenting - Lee and Jackie even went on an interview with Barbara Walters - VIOLATING A GAG ORDER. I don't remember Sharon on Ron going on a national TV program and violating the gag order.


They never did!

But you know what is funny about this whole argument?
The fact that before MG took the Million dollars and became DRISP attorney,
he was on LKL ripping him apart...


GERAGOS: ... 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...

GERAGOS: Oh, they're going to try him...

KING: ... first-degree murder...

GERAGOS: They'll try him for -- with special circumstances. I'll be shocked if they don't.


GERAGOS: It does not. But the fact that -- the fact he's up there and the fact that he's giving them the evidence, the fact that if it's true -- and we don't know if it is -- that there's apparently information on the tides and currents on his computer when they do the search, that is some pretty compelling evidence.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0304/18/lkl.00.html

[adnoid]

Convictions have been reversed due to pre-trial publicity and media circus atmosphere..."Dr. Sam Sheppard" case comes to mind...

Got any examples that are not from more than half a century ago?

[adnoid]

Spencer's description of Scott as a "good man" is, to me, disgusting and an insult to every really good man out there! If this man's behavior indicates an adoring, loving relationship to you, I consider that pathetic. You really need to raise your moral standards...

Yes, it is all about standards and what we will accept. I've made my own decisions on standards, and I offer this advice to Scott's supporters: I've upped my standards, up yours!

[Lavindar]

Got any examples that are not from more than half a century ago?

Not to mention that the mayor of Modesto did not go on record saying he was guilty as was done in the Shepherd case. And the Modesto Bee did not go on record saying he did it as the Cleveland papers did. In fact, the opposite occured in the Peterson case. The mayor stated that he thought Scott did not do it and the Bee never made a judgment - they just reported the news, INCLUDING all the FALSE leads that Geragos tried to parlay into innocence for his client - the "mystery woman," the "satanists," the non-existent "Perry Mason" moment, the "homeless" thieves who took Laci for the jewelry that he knew was sitting on the dresser of the Peterson home - those of a few things that MG CLAIMED would exhonerate Scott - none of which came true. I don't recall ANY paper in the Cleveland area who said that anyone else killed Marilyn Shepherd other than Sam himself.

[Miss Bootsie]

Convictions have been reversed due to pre-trial publicity and media circus atmosphere..."Dr. Sam Sheppard" case comes to mind..

*Snipped*




CORVALLIS, Ore. - Despite the growing news media fascination with murder and other high-profile trials, a new study has found that pre-trial publicity - and ongoing trial coverage - has little or no influence on the final verdict.

Though pre-trial coverage usually casts the defendant in a negative light, the authors say, their studies of more than 1,100 felony murder and bank robbery trials found no statistical difference between guilty verdicts in trials that were heavily publicized and trials that received virtually no media attention.


"Since the Supreme Court's ruling in the Sam Sheppard case in the 1960s, many people have assumed that the defendant can't get a fair trial if there has been a lot of pre-trial publicity," Loges said. "And certainly, the vast majority of pretrial publicity is negative to the defense. But the courts have developed ways of dealing with the publicity factor that makes it a non-issue, as long as attorneys and judges avail themselves of those remedies.

In about half of the cases, the researchers found, the trials received no publicity, and in those cases the defendant was found guilty 79 percent of the time. Among the other half of the cases, the trial coverage ranged from modest to intense. When the coverage was most intense, the defendants were found guilty 82 percent of the time. The difference between the odds of being found guilty in the no-publicity and high-publicity trials is not statistically significant, the researchers say.

In trials that received one to five stories in newspapers, the defendant was found guilty 92 percent of the time. When there were six to 10 stories, the guilty verdict rate dropped to 68 percent. "We believe that the quality of evidence is the most important factor," Loges said. "We didn't evaluate the evidence in these 300 (murder) cases because that was too expensive. We looked at enough cases, however, that there should have been a disparity in guilty verdicts if pre-trial publicity really did have an impact. And if there was a direct correlation between media coverage and verdict, you should see a linear result. The more publicity cases get, the more guilty verdicts should be rendered. That simply didn't happen."

Loges said cases that received low levels of attention likely follow a script: There is a news story on the crime, and another about the arrest. Ongoing coverage occurs when there is controversy, and that controversy often goes to the quality of the evidence, which already would be argued by both sides.

"The courts have developed remedies for dealing with the potential influence of publicity, including voir dire, admonitions from the judge, continuances, sequestration, change of venue and juror replacement," Loges said. "The biggest problem for the defendant is that you're the defendant. The prosecution has more resources than you do, and you have to be able to afford a good defense."

Ironically, Loges said, any influence news media coverage may have on major trials may not affect juries so much as it might have an impact on judges, prosecutors and even defense attorneys. For judges, the impact may come in sentencing. For counsel trying the case, the media may find holes in either side's argument, or include information not presented as evidence in court - such as prior convictions for a relevant crime by the defendant. The authors note in their book that defense attorneys may be motivated to work harder by excessive publicity, since it calls attention to their efforts and may attract future clients. But in the end, publicity alone isn't enough to affect the verdict in most cases.

"The burden on the viewer to understand that change has increased dramatically," Loges said. "But as viewers we're not prepared for that. What's most important to the justice system is that we act as responsible jurors - and our study shows that we are capable of that - even if our media don't provide unbiased coverage of the crimes about which we're asked to deliberate."



http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2004/Feb04/trials.htm

[ekg]

Goes to show state of mind.

Pure and simple and does explain a lot.



the wiretaps have to prove guilt in a crime( relevant evidence).. not what a persons character or state of mind was... but actual criminal stuff... They didn't show Scott breaking any law whatsoever..they showed him to be an adultery, nothing more..

“‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.”

the tapes prove Scott had an affair.... that's the only action they prove... but he doesn't contest that affair so there is nothing for the WT to prove of disprove..


A. Introduction

This court again abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence Mr. Peterson’s statements to his mistress Amber Frey. The statements were neither relevant nor material to the issue in the case. The statements did not amount to admissions or confessions, and did not concern the crime charged.

Reasonably viewed, the evasions and ambiguous statements to the mistress were nothing more that what they appeared to be, statements that an unfaithful husband might be expected to make to maintain an affair. They did not support an inference of murder. Rather, these statements published to the jury were highly inflammatory and prejudicial to Mr. Peterson.

99

B. Argument

“No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.” (Evid. Code, § 350.) “‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” (Evid. Code, § 210.) “The trial court has broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence but lacks discretion to admit irrelevant evidence.” (People v. Scheid (1998) 16 Cal.4th I, 13-14, internal citations omitted.) “[E]vidence presented on a [n]ondisputed issue is irrelevant and, hence [i]nadmissible ....” (People v. Coleman (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 312, 321, citing, e.g., Krouse v. Graham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 59.)

Mr. Peterson’s statements to his mistress had absolutely no probative value to the issues raised in the case –that is, whether Mr. Peterson committed capital murder. The statements did not amount to admissions or confessions. The statements were not proof of murder, they were proof of adultery, and no more. Mr. Peterson’s adulterous relationship with Amber Frey was not a disputed issue. Thus, under the above authority, the statements were irrelevant and inadmissible.

Even assuming for argument’s sake, however, that Mr. Peterson’s statement to his mistress were relevant to the crime charged, that evidence’s undue prejudicial impact far outweighed its probative value. (See Evid. Code, §352.) The vast majority of potential jurors will likely dislike a man who started an affair when his wife was nearly eight months pregnant. This evidence was no doubt introduced for the sole purpose of inflaming the passions of the jury against Mr. Peterson, passion and prejudices which in fact resulted in a guilty verdict despite the lack of sufficient evidence. Additionally, this evidence was cumulative in that the prosecution called Amber Frey as a witness who testified about her adulterous relationship with Mr. Peterson. Failure to exclude this irrelevant yet highly prejudicial evidence under Evidence Code section 352 was an abuse of discretion.

100

The erroneous admission of this evidence was plainly so prejudicial that it now entitles Mr. Peterson to a new trial.

[USAHICK]

the wiretaps have to prove guilt in a crime( relevant evidence).. not what a persons character or state of mind was... but actual criminal stuff... They didn't show Scott breaking any law whatsoever..they showed him to be an adultery, nothing more..

“‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.”

the tapes prove Scott had an affair.... that's the only action they prove... but he doesn't contest that affair so there is nothing for the WT to prove of disprove..


Not true.

The tapes showed he didn't want to be a father.
The tapes showed he was not the least bit concerned about his missing wife and baby.
The tapes showed he was not the marvelous family man his supports pretend he is.
The tapes showed he's a pathalogical liar.
The tapes showed he was capable of deceit on all levels.
The tapes showed he was NOT a man who loved his wife, missed his wife, or even remotely looked for his wife.
The tapes PROVED he said he lost his wife BEFORE he lost her.

That is "state of mind" - yes, his state of mind/character clearly showed he was capable of murdering his family.

Grounds for appeal? Haha....it ain't gonna happen.

[I'mSun]

Convictions have been reversed due to pre-trial publicity and media circus atmosphere..."Dr. Sam Sheppard" case comes to mind..

IMO, The defense position was represented on shows only to mock that position and make fun of the idea that Scott Peterson was innocent...there is no question Scott was demonized by the media..! there was a huge billboard that was visible from the freeway and it was fairly close to the court depicting a picture of Scott in his jail uniform..."Man or monster?"..etc..etc..etc..

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&linkurl=http%3a//www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/gvpt339&graphurl=http%3a//wsrv.clas.Virginia.EDU/%7eljs/images/smflag.gif&vol=384&invol=333After a couple years of a certain poster continually trying to shove this down our throats, he finally got a believer! Sheppard v Maxwell was many, many years ago, different state and if you take the time to read the TS you will see the vast differences.

[ekg]

Furthermore, I believe the taps will be thrown out b/c The Prosecution didn't prove they were even necessary....you have to get approval for taps by saying that you've exhausted every other way of investigation, no other way would work and to investigate the person would be too dangerous.

9Specifically, Penal Code section 629.50, subdivision (a)(4)(B) requires a showing of “the fact that conventional investigative techniques had been tried and were unsuccessful, or why the reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed or to be too dangerous.” (See 18 U.S.C. section 2518 (3)©)

none of that is the case here.. and case law gives six steps for "finding necessity for the wiretap"



10 (See Zepeda at 202.) However, a review of the six factors relied upon by the Zepeda court reveal that Zepeda is easily distinguished from the instant matter.

10The six factors were: (1) The case against defendant was entirely circumstantial; (2) It appeared the witnesses were reluctant to come forward other than in an anonymous manner; (3) The detective believed that questioning defendant about the shooting was unlikely to produce any additional evidence; (4) The defendant was unaware the police had seized evidence from his room and his vehicle; and (6) The detective believed that the defendant was likely to alert others and ask them to destroy other evidence.



Here, Zepeda factors 2, 4, 5, and 6 were clearly not present. Factor 1 was present because there can be no showing of non-circumstantial evidence since Mr. Peterson is factually innocent.



Moreover, if this factor alone made a wiretap permissible virtually every murder investigation could employ a wiretap from the outset until the prosecution had obtained concrete evidence against a suspect. This absurd result would be inconsistent with California’s (and the United States’) preference for normal, less invasive investigative techniques.

93


Per Jacobson's own affidavit for the WT...



Normal investigative techniques have been tried and have been successful in identifying and securing evidence against the Target Subjects.

(Jacobson Affidavit at paragraph 11 (c), emphasis added.)

***

As set forth, law enforcement has obtained a great deal of information pertaining to this investigation. At present, I believe there is circumstantial evidence against Scott Peterson. This evidence, if used in court proceedings, may be enough to obtain proof beyond a reasonable doubt against Scott Peterson

he calls the investigation successful..successful enough for conviction.which is in contrast to the case law saying the WT can only be used when normal investigation is UNSUCCESSFUL.


From these two items alone, it is clear the government believed it had great success in obtaining evidence - - so much evidence that Jacobson was willing to state his belief that they had enough evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. On its face, the Jacobson Affidavit not only failed to establish necessity, the Affidavit pointed to the opposite conclusion - - namely, that in the prosecutor’s opinion, they could already prove Mr. Peterson’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.




also.....

For example, although Jacobson claimed that the wiretaps were necessary, he entirely neglected two key facts. First, Jacobson acknowledged the collection of blood and hair samples which had yet to be fully analyzed at the time of the application. (Jacobson Affidavit at paragraph 27.) Second, Jacobson admitted that on January 9, 2003, the day before the wiretap application:

a possible body ha[s] been located in the San Francisco Bay, near the Berkeley Marina. This potential body was located by accurate sonar equipment utilized in the search of the bay by authorities in this case. In the

event that this is confirmed as the body of Laci Peterson, after recovery attempts are made on Saturday, January 11, 2003...[the day after the wiretap application]
(Jacobson affidavit at paragraph 35, emphasis added.)

The law on necessity is unambiguous –“the purpose of [the necessity] requirement is to ensure that wiretapping is not resorted to in situations where traditional investigative techniques would suffice to expose the crime.” (See United States v. Kahn (1974) U.S. 143, 153, n. 12.) In light of the prosecution’s possession of DNA samples as well as the possible recovery of the body, there was no necessity at the time Jacobson composed his affidavit and the wiretap authorization. The application for the wiretap was nothing more than an additional tool sought by the prosecution in its one-man targeted capital investigation.

on the date he asked for the WT, he thought a body had been found and other DNA evidence hadn't come back yet.. so the normal investigation process were not exhausted at that time.

and finally, every reason Jacobson gave for the WT, reasons that LE had exhausted every ways to get evidence, there was nothing else found during normal investigation, all other investgative tools were futile since there was nothing there.. so they needed the WT.. this is all the same evidence the DA used to convict Scott.


In addition, the wiretap affidavit was also disingenuous in referring to other police methods as being futile. The very evidence presented by the prosecution at trial in order to convict Mr. Peterson (the Amber tapes, the physical surveillance, the interviews) is the same evidence that Jacobson tells the court has been futile in providing the defendant’s guilt. Either Jacobson is lying about the other police methods being futile or the prosecution put on a case in which they were aware the evidence was lacking.

In sum, because there was no necessity authorizing the wiretap was invalid and all wiretap evidence should have been excluded. The prejudice that the admission of this irrelevant evidence caused Mr. Peterson at trial now warrants the granting of a new trial upon this error.

If it this stuff made the investigation futile and just not good enough so they needed the WT, then how is the same stuff good enough to convict in a DP case? Either Jacobson was lying in his affidavit when said they had exhausted all other forms of investigation and had came up empty, or the DA put on his case knowing the case knowing he had nothing there..

[Lavindar]

CORVALLIS, Ore. - Despite the growing news media fascination with murder and other high-profile trials, a new study has found that pre-trial publicity - and ongoing trial coverage - has little or no influence on the final verdict.

imo














http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2004/Feb04/trials.htm
given that information (and you know Garegos was fully capable of reading that), it would seem the publicity was just for Hollywood Mark and not for his client.

[ekg]

Per Riviera's request let's get back on topic. I'll start with a question.

Some people are saying that the Amber tapes served no purpose other than to inflame the jury. Even though there was no confession on any of them, I believe Scott incriminated himself in many of his statements. I do believe these tapes will be challenged on appeal and, IMO, it may be the defense's strongest chance. Could someone explain the difference between the phrase "more prejudicial than probative". What standard does the judge use in determining the evidentiary value in something like these tapes?

he didn't incriminate himself in any crime....and Amber could have testified to the affair... . therefore the WT were unnecessary... the only reason to have them was to inflame the jury.

state of mind is not a reason to have and use wiretaps.. they are used as an investigative tool when everything else fails......... LE learned nothing about the crime from the tapes..They learned he was an ass, but that's not a crime....They didn't get any leads or information.. they only heard proof of an affair.

also, the wiretaps are used to discredit the defendant.... they don't discredit him his claim of innocence b/c he doesn't admit to anything and LE got nothing from them to go on(re the murders).. the only thing they discredit is him being a faithful husband.... and he admitted to that, so there is no need for he WT.

in fact, IMO there is no need for Amber... except to inflame the jury.... Scott could stipulate that he did have an affair, but the DA wouldn't do that would they? They want her up there pissing off the jury.. What probative value does she have that the DA can't stipulate to the affair? none..What can she testify to that Scott can't stipulate to before hand? Nothing.......but a stipulation doesn't piss anyone off as much as hearing her talk about their long walks and picnics together does, does it?

which why IMO this case is only about emotions and nothing more...IMO the DA banked on that jury getting pissed when the heard those tapes... even tho there is absolutely no evidence of a crime on them, the DA knew that wouldn't matter once they heard "Euro-Trip" and all the 'honey/baby's'. the DA knew that was how they would win, not in the evidence, b/c even Jacobson said that was so lacking that they needed the WT in the 1st place..so the only way to win with the same (lacking) evidence was to make the jury hate Scott.... and that's what Amber and her tapes did.. nothing probative at all, 100% prejudicial IMO...

[deputydi]

Convictions have been reversed due to pre-trial publicity and media circus atmosphere..."Dr. Sam Sheppard" case comes to mind..

IMO, The defense position was represented on shows only to mock that position and make fun of the idea that Scott Peterson was innocent...there is no question Scott was demonized by the media..! there was a huge billboard that was visible from the freeway and it was fairly close to the court depicting a picture of Scott in his jail uniform..."Man or monster?"..etc..etc..etc..

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&linkurl=http%3a//www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/gvpt339&graphurl=http%3a//wsrv.clas.Virginia.EDU/%7eljs/images/smflag.gif&vol=384&invol=333

Dr Sheppard got a new trial because the enormous amount of pretrial publicity proclaimed him guilty before he had been tried. There was no fairness in the reporting -- the articles in the Cleveland papers did not refer to his crime as "alleged" and, IIRC, his change of venue was denied. The laws governing reporting crimes was changed after this trial. The Constitution guarantees freedom of the press to report, but guidelines were set to ensure fair reporting. That's the difference.

For every TH who talked about the likelyhood (not certainty) he was guilty, someone was there to counter it who talked about the reasons he could be innocent. Both sides were fairly represented.

[deputydi]

he didn't incriminate himself in any crime....and Amber could have testified to the affair... . therefore the WT were unnecessary... the only reason to have them was to inflame the jury.
<snip>
Predictably, I disagree. Scott incriminated himself many times -- he confirmed the statements SS testified to (recently "lost" his wife, first holidays without her, told Amber she had guessed the truth, can't tell her the whole story now, but will later, and many more.

The tapes proved Scott's propensity for lying -- to everyone. And proved how good he was at it.

Without the tapes (and only Amber's testimony) all this would just be the word of an angry lover. Scott's words confirmed everything she told LE.

[Lavindar]

he didn't incriminate himself in any crime....and Amber could have testified to the affair... . therefore the WT were unnecessary... the only reason to have them was to inflame the jury.

state of mind is not a reason to have and use wiretaps.. they are used as an investigative tool when everything else fails......... LE learned nothing about the crime from the tapes..They learned he was an ass, but that's not a crime....They didn't get any leads or information.. they only heard proof of an affair.

also, the wiretaps are used to discredit the defendant.... they don't discredit him his claim of innocence b/c he doesn't admit to anything and LE got nothing from them to go on(re the murders).. the only thing they discredit is him being a faithful husband.... and he admitted to that, so there is no need for he WT.

in fact, IMO there is no need for Amber... except to inflame the jury.... Scott could stipulate that he did have an affair, but the DA wouldn't do that would they? They want her up there pissing off the jury.. What probative value does she have that the DA can't stipulate to the affair? none..What can she testify to that Scott can't stipulate to before hand? Nothing.......but a stipulation doesn't piss anyone off as much as hearing her talk about their long walks and picnics together does, does it?

which why IMO this case is only about emotions and nothing more...IMO the DA banked on that jury getting pissed when the heard those tapes... even tho there is absolutely no evidence of a crime on them, the DA knew that wouldn't matter once they heard "Euro-Trip" and all the 'honey/baby's'. the DA knew that was how they would win, not in the evidence, b/c even Jacobson said that was so lacking that they needed the WT in the 1st place..so the only way to win with the same (lacking) evidence was to make the jury hate Scott.... and that's what Amber and her tapes did.. nothing probative at all, 100% prejudicial IMO...

Consciousness of guilt is allowed in CA courts, and a man talking to his girlfriend for hours of a time shows a man who either KNOWS his wife is not returning, or doesn't care if she returns or not imo.

[frydaddy]

No, it won't. The key issue on the media thing is whether or not it was fairly presented. On every show I saw the DEFENSE position was represented as well as the prosecution. Look at the newspaper and tv news -- they always included statements that said "Peterson maintains his innocence" or "according to a family representative" or something like that. The fact that it received lots of attention won't get Scott a free pass -- or another trial.

How quickly people forget Cardoza's battles with Nancy Grace early on. Mickey Sherman on CC all the time...who else...been too long...Horowitz, Hammer, Greta...didn't all come to Scott's or Mark's defense at one point or another? Then you have Justin making his rounds after he got the boot. The media...another big co-conspirator against poor Scott! Laughable, ain't it! ;)

[frydaddy]

Spencer's description of Scott as a "good man" is, to me, disgusting and an insult to every really good man out there! If this man's behavior indicates an adoring, loving relationship to you, I consider that pathetic. You really need to raise your moral standards.

Whether anyone believes Scott is innocent or guilty, I honestly don't see how anyone other than his parents can think of him as a "good man". A lot of people were fooled by the surface behavior they saw, but that is typical of a lot of sleazy people. They are good at hiding things they don't want others to know about and they are good at it.

If Spencer's idea of an adoring, loving marriage is typified by what we now know about Scott Lee Peterson -- I don't want it.

Spot on! :beer:

[ekg]

It just amazes me when I see people post that Scott/Geragos didn't have to prove anything, nor did they have to present exonerating evidence.

WHO in this world would hire a million-dollar defense attorney when their life is at stake, to have him sit there and say, "prove it!".

Of COURSE anyone is going to pull out all the stops and present anything they can that will save the client's life. If that weren't the case, an attorney in court wouldn't even be necessary - let alone a super high-priced one.

And yet, some people think that Scott and his family were content to just sit there smugly and say to themselves, "hah.....there's no evidence and they don't have a good case, and I don't have to prove anything".

nothing against you CW, but I pray you're never on a jury for me or someone I know....:chicken: :tongue:

But this post tells me you're the kind of person who sits back, looks at the defense table and says "Ok, prove he didn't do it!"....... that's not how it's done here..... it's not the defenses job to prove anything to you...it's the State and ONLY the states job to prove anything...

MG did pull out all the stops...and up until Amber,IMO, he was winning.... after Amber there was nothing that could have won that case for him... and Amber proved nothing but Scott was a jerk-cheater.. but that was enough to convict him..

[I'mSun]

Consciousness of guilt is allowed in CA courts, and a man talking to his girlfriend for hours of a time shows a man who either KNOWS his wife is not returning, or doesn't care if she returns or not imo.ITA Lavindar. It is especially telling when a man is on the phone with his girlfriend at a vigil for his wife who is missing. He couldn't even pretend to care that she was missing. Enter Pasquale and the Eiffel Tower. :flamemad:

[ekg]

Predictably, I disagree. Scott incriminated himself many times -- he confirmed the statements SS testified to (recently "lost" his wife, first holidays without her, told Amber she had guessed the truth, can't tell her the whole story now, but will later, and many more.

The tapes proved Scott's propensity for lying -- to everyone. And proved how good he was at it.

Without the tapes (and only Amber's testimony) all this would just be the word of an angry lover. Scott's words confirmed everything she told LE.

none of that proves a crime.....

[frydaddy]

Got any examples that are not from more than half a century ago?

Maybe they'll go with the technological advancement defense. Cable and internet damned Scott from the beginning. Al Gore - co-conspirator!

[I'mSun]

..... it's not the defenses job to prove anything to you...it's the State and ONLY the states job to prove anything...

MG did pull out all the stops...and up until Amber,IMO, he was winning.... after Amber there was nothing that could have won that case for him... and Amber proved nothing but Scott was a jerk-cheater.. but that was enough to convict him..The State did a great job, too - they proved to the jury that Scott was a murderer. Mark Geragos was unable to convince the jury to let a guilty man go free. I applaud the jury for a job well done.

[ekg]

Not true.

The tapes showed he didn't want to be a father. not a crime


The tapes showed he was not the least bit concerned about his missing wife and baby. not a crime

The tapes showed he was not the marvelous family man his supports pretend he is. not a crime


The tapes showed he's a pathalogical liar. not a crime

The tapes showed he was capable of deceit on all levels.
The tapes showed he was NOT a man who loved his wife, missed his wife, or even remotely looked for his wife.
The tapes PROVED he said he lost his wife BEFORE he lost her.
and not a crime


That is "state of mind" - yes, his state of mind/character clearly showed he was capable of murdering his family.

Grounds for appeal? Haha....it ain't gonna happen.


state of mind isn't a reason to use the WT...

“No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.” (Evid. Code, § 350.) “‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” (Evid. Code, § 210.) “The trial court has broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence but lacks discretion to admit irrelevant evidence.” (People v. Scheid (1998) 16 Cal.4th I, 13-14, internal citations omitted.) “[E]vidence presented on a [n]ondisputed issue is irrelevant and, hence [i]nadmissible ....” (People v. Coleman (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 312, 321, citing, e.g., Krouse v. Graham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 59.)

nothing you listed is a crime...so IMO the WT are invalid..

The affair is not a disputed fact, so IMO the WT are invalid.. Evidence presented on a NONDISPUTED FACT is irrelevant and INADMISSIBLE

does lying prove he killed her?

does not wanting the baby prove he killed her?

does having an affair prove he killed her?

does not being a family man prove he killed her?

did he expressly confess on the tapes? No

Was there any probative value in the tapes? IE did LE get a lead off them? No..

except for his character, which the only thing the tapes prove..what crime do the tapes prove?


Grounds for appeal? Haha....it ain't gonna happen

is this a fact?

[USAHICK]

nothing against you CW, but I pray you're never on a jury for me or someone I know....:chicken: :tongue:

But this post tells me you're the kind of person who sits back, looks at the defense table and says "Ok, prove he didn't do it!"....... that's not how it's done here..... it's not the defenses job to prove anything to you...it's the State and ONLY the states job to prove anything...

MG did pull out all the stops...and up until Amber,IMO, he was winning.... after Amber there was nothing that could have won that case for him... and Amber proved nothing but Scott was a jerk-cheater.. but that was enough to convict him..

Funny Ekg, the jurors for DRISP do agree with you. Each and everyone of them said that going into the trial they thought here's a man who simply had an affair and now everyone's making such a big deal out of it. Not a single one went into that trial beliving DRISP was guilty. Interesting.

[ekg]

Predictably, I disagree. Scott incriminated himself many times -- he confirmed the statements SS testified to (recently "lost" his wife, first holidays without her, told Amber she had guessed the truth, can't tell her the whole story now, but will later, and many more.

The tapes proved Scott's propensity for lying -- to everyone. And proved how good he was at it.

Without the tapes (and only Amber's testimony) all this would just be the word of an angry lover. Scott's words confirmed everything she told LE.

as I, predictably, knew you would and took the time to answer you anyway..

lying does not prove murder.

IMO the tapes have no probative value at all.. nothing was learned from them to help as an investigation tool.which is what they are for.

LE already knew Scott was a liar and even if they didn't... that wasn't something that was dangerous for them to find out and it wasn't something only a wiretap would be able to tell them...

imo..

[ekg]

My only issue with your post Spenc is that you have nothing to back it up. No facts, no "real killer", nothing but spins on incremential pieces of the events. Connect the dots...it'll provide you with a crystal clear picture of Scott Lee Peterson committing the planned out cold-blooded murder of his wife and baby.

the jury disagrees with you on that....

[Lavindar]

nothing against you CW, but I pray you're never on a jury for me or someone I know....:chicken: :tongue:

But this post tells me you're the kind of person who sits back, looks at the defense table and says "Ok, prove he didn't do it!"....... that's not how it's done here..... it's not the defenses job to prove anything to you...it's the State and ONLY the states job to prove anything...

MG did pull out all the stops...and up until Amber,IMO, he was winning.... after Amber there was nothing that could have won that case for him... and Amber proved nothing but Scott was a jerk-cheater.. but that was enough to convict him..


Do you HONESTLY believe that all the lies he told on those tapes to everyone had nothing to do with his credibility or his conviction? You think the jury convicted him because he was a jerk-cheater? I suggest you read their book if you HONESTLY believe that. The jury heard Scott's own words in his own voice lying his head off about EVERYTHING under the sun.

[Lavindar]

the jury disagrees with you on that....


in what way?

[frydaddy]

as I, predictably, knew you would and took the time to answer you anyway..

lying does not prove murder.

IMO the tapes have no probative value at all.. nothing was learned from them to help as an investigation tool.which is what they are for.

LE already knew Scott was a liar and even if they didn't... that wasn't something that was dangerous for them to find out and it wasn't something only a wiretap would be able to tell them...

imo..

Plenty of links on Google that show that state of mind evidence is admissable.

[ekg]

There was always someone from the defense camp commenting - Lee and Jackie even went on an interview with Barbara Walters - VIOLATING A GAG ORDER. I don't remember Sharon on Ron going on a national TV program and violating the gag order.

no, but LE did....

Peterson Judge Scolds Modesto Police for Violating Gag Order



Story created 6/28/2004 - 1:52 PM Last updated 6/29/2004 - 12:16 AM



The double murder trial of Scott Peterson got underway this week with the judge scolding the Modesto Police Department for violating a gag order.

At the start of the proceedings on Monday morning, Judge Alfred Delucchi called a police captain to the front of the courtroom. "No law enforcement officers are supposed to be discussing this case," Delucchi said. "I'm telling you, this has to stop."

Delucchi warned police officials that any anyone making any further comments about the trial would be subject to legal sanctions. The admonishment was prompted by statements made on Friday, when Modesto police refuted claims by Scott Peterson's defense attorney that they ignored a key witness in the case.

During cross examination Thursday, Modesto Detective Allen Brocchini testified that he omitted information on a key witness from his police reports. The witness reportedly saw Laci Peterson at the warehouse where her husband stored his boat.

On Friday, Modesto police Sergeant Ed Steele told reporters that information on the witness was included in a report by another detective, and that the report had been provided to the defense prior to the trial. He went on to characterize the previous day's court proceedings as simply an attempt by the defense to put a spin on events.

After Delucchi finished admonishing the police captain, Brocchini was recalled to the stand. Lead defense attorney Mark Geragos continued his cross-examination, picking up where he had left off on Thursday.

Geragos asked a number of questions about an alleged break-in at the Peterson home by Kim McGregor, who frequently walked the couple's dog. Brocchini testified about his investigation of the January 2003 break-in and his interrogation of McGregor.

Geragos honed in on several apparent lies by McGregor, including her denial that she had taken anything from the home. Police believe she stole a number of items, including Laci Peterson's Social Security card and a video camera.

Geragos seemed to be pointing to McGregor as a possible suspect or accomplice in the murder of Laci Peterson. When asked, however, Brocchini testified that his investigation found McGregor's alibi for the day of the disappearance checked out. He also told the defense attorney that McGregor had never been charged with the break-in because Scott Peterson declined to press charges.

Throughout the trial, Geragos has worked to portray the Modesto Police Department as incompetent and has endeavored to show that investigators ignored potential suspects while focussing their entire efforts on Scott Peterson.

Scott Peterson is on trial for the deaths of his wife and unborn son. If convicted he could receive the death penalty
http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Media/articles/scolds.htm

[ekg]

Not to mention that the mayor of Modesto did not go on record saying he was guilty as was done in the Shepherd case. And the Modesto Bee did not go on record saying he did it as the Cleveland papers did. In fact, the opposite occured in the Peterson case. The mayor stated that he thought Scott did not do it and the Bee never made a judgment - they just reported the news, INCLUDING all the FALSE leads that Geragos tried to parlay into innocence for his client - the "mystery woman," the "satanists," the non-existent "Perry Mason" moment, the "homeless" thieves who took Laci for the jewelry that he knew was sitting on the dresser of the Peterson home - those of a few things that MG CLAIMED would exhonerate Scott - none of which came true. I don't recall ANY paper in the Cleveland area who said that anyone else killed Marilyn Shepherd other than Sam himself.


the mayor didn't...... but even worse, the CA. ATTORNEY GENERAL did..

Not wanting to be left off the "convict Scott Peterson bandwagon," California State Attorney General Bill Lockyer stated "this is a compellingly strong case. I would call the odds slam-dunk that he is going to be convicted." Mr. Peterson pleaded not guilty to two capital murder charges during his arraignment on April 21, 2003. On or about April 26, 2003, District Attorney James Brazelton announced that he would seek the death penalty for Mr. Peterson.

IMO....that's just crazy for an ATTORNEY GENERAL to make that kind of highly prejudicial comment

[Miss Bootsie]

even tho there is absolutely no evidence of a crime on them, ...



Scott -"I lost my wife"-Dec. 06 Shawn Sibley

Scott - Search for boat - Dec. 07 Lydell Wall

Scott - "I lost my wife" - Dec. 09 Amber Frey

Scott - Purchased boat - Dec. 09 Bruce Peterson

Laci - Disappeared on 12-24-02

Scott - Boat - SF Bay - 12-24-02

Bodies - found ashore - same vicinity---- Scott - boat - 12-24

[ekg]

Consciousness of guilt is allowed in CA courts, and a man talking to his girlfriend for hours of a time shows a man who either KNOWS his wife is not returning, or doesn't care if she returns or not imo.


COG may very well be allowed in CA courts..... but not from WT. Those are for investigative purposes when all else fails.. and they can only be used to prove or disprove a disputed fact.... the affair wasn't disputed.
in fact, when the fact is not disputed, the law said the evidence is inadmissible and irrelevant.

[ekg]

in what way?


Scott Lee Peterson was not found guilty of committing the planned out cold-blooded murder of his baby.

that way.

remember, the jury said he didn't plan to kill Connor when he planned to kill Laci...

which IMO, will be another reason his appeal will be successful..if the evidence proves Pre-med for Laci.. then IMO it has to prove Pre- Med for her body and what's inside of it..

if he didn't mean to kill the baby inside, then maybe he didn't mean to kill the her kidneys or lungs that were also inside her either...

[cookiewench]

nothing against you CW, but I pray you're never on a jury for me or someone I know....:chicken: :tongue:

But this post tells me you're the kind of person who sits back, looks at the defense table and says "Ok, prove he didn't do it!"....... that's not how it's done here..... it's not the defenses job to prove anything to you...it's the State and ONLY the states job to prove anything...

MG did pull out all the stops...and up until Amber,IMO, he was winning.... after Amber there was nothing that could have won that case for him... and Amber proved nothing but Scott was a jerk-cheater.. but that was enough to convict him..

I think that's an unfair projection onto another poster, ekg.

No one sits back and says "okay, prove he didn't do it!", but we all know that in spite of what we call the presumption of innocence, both sides are in a huge battle.

Just by the fact that the defendant is in the courtroom and the fact that we understand how our laws work, things that we'd know as fact, including:

1. There are strict laws concerning how evidence can be collected, what is considered to be evidence, and how search warrants can be granted and used.

2. There has a preliminary hearing (or in some cases, Grand Jury hearing) before this trial, in which enough of the legal evidence has to be presented to prove that there's enough to hold up the indictment, and to proceed to trial.

3. The judge can throw out the indictment at the preliminary hearing if there's any indication that there is not enough LEGAL evidence to bring the case to trial.

4. This judge has already thrown out any evidence that would not have been strictly legally obtained or is not permissable in a court of law.


I'd also like to know why, if it's simply a matter of the defendant sitting there and challenging the state to prove it's case, why a high-powered, expensive attorney would even be necessary. Couldn't a court-appointed attorney do the simple job of sitting there and objecting to anything he thinks is wrong, and cross-examining the prosecution's witnesses.

In fact, if the defendant doesn't have to prove anything, why would he be calling any of his own witnesses at all?

[ekg]

Plenty of links on Google that show that state of mind evidence is admissable.


sure, but are there any that say they can be used for uncontested, admitted, state of mind..

that's the distinction here.. I don't disagree his state of mind or the COG isn't admissible...... I disagree that its admissible from the wiretaps..he doesn't dispute affair..so theres nothing 'probative' that the DA can benefit from.

WT are an investigative tool.... not a state of mind tool...also CA has very fine (defining) laws when it comes to WT and what they can be used for and why they can be ordered......the WT themselves can't just be used for state of mind or COG unless they implicate him in a specific crime.... and they did not specifically implicate him in anything other than an affair.

the lies aren't a crime.... and can come in with other evidence from other sources besides the WT


same as Amber/the affair... all of her info ( altho it's not contested, so maybe she/it isn't relevant either under the "Relevant evidence" definition.) can come in w/o WT also..

there is nothing incriminating mentioned about the crime itself... how it was done, where,when,why..nothing that stands alone as the AHA! WE HAVE IT ON TAPE! moment.. and that's the only thing WT can be used for in court..

now, if Scott had got up and contested the affair and said he never lied a day in his life, then they would be allowed in as rebuttal..... but he maintained his innocence on them, and maintained that innocence in court.. so the WT don't dispute anything...

imo

[frydaddy]

sure, but are there any that say they can be used for uncontested, admitted, state of mind..

that's the distinction here.. I don't disagree his state of mind or the COG isn't admissible...... I disagree that its admissible from the wiretaps..he doesn't dispute affair..so theres nothing 'probative' that the DA can benefit from.

WT are an investigative tool.... not a state of mind tool...also CA has very fine (defining) laws when it comes to WT and what they can be used for and why they can be ordered......the WT themselves can't just be used for state of mind or COG unless they implicate him in a specific crime.... and they did not specifically implicate him in anything other than an affair.

the lies aren't a crime.... and can come in with other evidence from other sources besides the WT


same as Amber/the affair... all of her info ( altho it's not contested, so maybe she/it isn't relevant either under the "Relevant evidence" definition.) can come in w/o WT also..

there is nothing incriminating mentioned about the crime itself... how it was done, where,when,why..nothing that stands alone as the AHA! WE HAVE IT ON TAPE! moment.. and that's the only thing WT can be used for in court..

now, if Scott had got up and contested the affair and said he never lied a day in his life, then they would be allowed in as rebuttal..... but he maintained his innocence on them, and maintained that innocence in court.. so the WT don't dispute anything...

imo

Not sure where you are getting your WT info from, but I disagree with you!

[ekg]

Do you HONESTLY believe that all the lies he told on those tapes to everyone had nothing to do with his credibility or his conviction? You think the jury convicted him because he was a jerk-cheater? I suggest you read their book if you HONESTLY believe that. The jury heard Scott's own words in his own voice lying his head off about EVERYTHING under the sun.

I think his lies hurt him immensely..... but I'm not debating you on that issue, I debating you on whether the WT are admissible to prove only those lies.

I don't need to read their book Lavindar, I have the TS themselves and they speak more than anyones book can...

yes, I fully believe the jury convicted him b/c he was a jerk-cheater-liar...... and I would be astonished if any of them had walked out and admitted that.

c'mon, you don't really think they'd admit that do you?

and call me crazy... but I think a jerk-liar-cheater deserves divorce or a beating... but not the death penalty..:no:

[I'mSun]

Scott Lee Peterson was not found guilty of committing the planned out cold-blooded murder of his baby.

that way.

remember, the jury said he didn't plan to kill Connor when he planned to kill Laci...

which IMO, will be another reason his appeal will be successful..if the evidence proves Pre-med for Laci.. then IMO it has to prove Pre- Med for her body and what's inside of it..

if he didn't mean to kill the baby inside, then maybe he didn't mean to kill the her kidneys or lungs that were also inside her either...The windmills are tilting ever so far... While Scott may not have planned to kill Conner, he did plan to kill Laci and he knew that if Laci were dead, Conner would be too. He needed only to plan one murder for both of them to be killed. And, he did.

[ekg]

I think that's an unfair projection onto another poster, ekg.

No one sits back and says "okay, prove he didn't do it!", but we all know that in spite of what we call the presumption of innocence, both sides are in a huge battle.

Just by the fact that the defendant is in the courtroom and the fact that we understand how our laws work, things that we'd know as fact, including:

1. There are strict laws concerning how evidence can be collected, what is considered to be evidence, and how search warrants can be granted and used.

2. There has a preliminary hearing (or in some cases, Grand Jury hearing) before this trial, in which enough of the legal evidence has to be presented to prove that there's enough to hold up the indictment, and to proceed to trial.

3. The judge can throw out the indictment at the preliminary hearing if there's any indication that there is not enough LEGAL evidence to bring the case to trial.

4. This judge has already thrown out any evidence that would not have been strictly legally obtained or is not permissable in a court of law.


I'd also like to know why, if it's simply a matter of the defendant sitting there and challenging the state to prove it's case, why a high-powered, expensive attorney would even be necessary. Couldn't a court-appointed attorney do the simple job of sitting there and objecting to anything he thinks is wrong, and cross-examining the prosecution's witnesses.

In fact, if the defendant doesn't have to prove anything, why would he be calling any of his own witnesses at all?

b/c they have to earn that million dollars...

I'm sorry you think it was an unfair projection.... but IMO

Originally Posted by cookiewench View Post
It just amazes me when I see people post that Scott/Geragos didn't have to prove anything, nor did they have to present exonerating evidence.

you said exactly what I thought you said..

why does it amaze you that ppl think he doesn't have to present evidence? when he doesn't... it's not up to him to prove anything.....

but b/c our system has turned so 'anti-defendant' in last few yrs... it has morphed into the system you are talking about... where the Defense has to solve the crime for LE and prove their client is innocent....

it's not Scott or Marks job to tell you who did it...... it's only their job to sit there while the State proves to you that the Defendant did it... and if the State is lacking in that area, the only thing the defense needs to do is point that out to the jury and then rest.... b/c a jury should be impartial and only find guilt on pertinent evidence..... not affairs and lies..

but we know from the OJ trial that juries like shock and awe and slogans from the Defense..and if they don't get that.... well then they'll just convict..IMO anyway..

[ekg]

Not sure where you are getting your WT info from, but I disagree with you!



“No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.” (Evid. Code, § 350.) “‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” (Evid. Code, § 210.) “The trial court has broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence but lacks discretion to admit irrelevant evidence.” (People v. Scheid (1998) 16 Cal.4th I, 13-14, internal citations omitted.) “[E]vidence presented on a [n]ondisputed issue is irrelevant and, hence [i]nadmissible ....” (People v. Coleman (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 312, 321, citing, e.g., Krouse v. Graham (1977) 19 Cal.3d 59.)

from the def. motion for a new trial...

sure it's from the defense, but the law cited is still the law even if it's the Defense who's using it....


I've been talking about it for a few posts now....

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8930653&postcount=4060

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8930688&postcount=4063

and then sporadically explaining in a cpl more posts in the last page...:shrug:

[Otter]

the mayor didn't...... but even worse, the CA. ATTORNEY GENERAL did..



IMO....that's just crazy for an ATTORNEY GENERAL to make that kind of highly prejudicial comment

I remember that Charlie Manson held up the afternoon edition of the LA Times in front of the jury. The headline was huge!

"'Manson Guilty' Nixon Declares"

In Los Angeles, the effect of Nixon's remarks on the Manson trial was instant and dramatic. While the Los Angeles Times came out the same afternoon with a four-inch headline reading MANSON GUILTY, NIXON DECLARES, Judge Charles Older went to great lengths to ensure that the jury, which has been sequestered since the trial began, would not learn of Nixon's remarks. The windows of the jury bus were whited over with Bon Ami so that no juror could glimpse the headline on street newsstands. If the jury discovered Nixon's verdict, the defense might have grounds for a mistrial. His efforts were to no avail. Next day Manson himself displayed a copy of the Times to the jury for some ten seconds before a bailiff grabbed the newspaper from his hands. Judge Older called a recess, then questioned the jurors one by one to satisfy himself that their judgment would not be affected. An alternate juror convulsed the courtroom when he announced his disclaimer: "I didn't vote for Nixon in the first place." The judge denied a motion for a mistrial, and the defense lawyers proceeded with cross-examination of the state's star witness, Linda Kasabian, a former member of the Manson "family."


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,909547-3,00.html


No mistrial or no grounds for an appeal for a new trial I would surmise since he's sitting in prison somewhere. These jurors went through voir dire and both sides were satisfied that they weren't "tainted" by the evil media.

So ... what's your point? :shrug:

[ekg]

The windmills are tilting ever so far... While Scott may not have planned to kill Conner, he did plan to kill Laci and he knew that if Laci were dead, Conner would be too. He needed only to plan one murder for both of them to be killed. And, he did.

and yet the jury still disagrees with you..

if they did agree, then his "one plan" to kill her would have also killed him.... but the 2nd degree conviction proves they don't agree that was the case...

which, again.... I think will be an appealable issue..

[TopGunner]

he didn't incriminate himself in any crime....and Amber could have testified to the affair... . therefore the WT were unnecessary... the only reason to have them was to inflame the jury.

state of mind is not a reason to have and use wiretaps.. they are used as an investigative tool when everything else fails......... LE learned nothing about the crime from the tapes..They learned he was an ass, but that's not a crime....They didn't get any leads or information.. they only heard proof of an affair.

also, the wiretaps are used to discredit the defendant.... they don't discredit him his claim of innocence b/c he doesn't admit to anything and LE got nothing from them to go on(re the murders).. the only thing they discredit is him being a faithful husband.... and he admitted to that, so there is no need for he WT.

in fact, IMO there is no need for Amber... except to inflame the jury.... Scott could stipulate that he did have an affair, but the DA wouldn't do that would they? They want her up there pissing off the jury.. What probative value does she have that the DA can't stipulate to the affair? none..What can she testify to that Scott can't stipulate to before hand? Nothing.......but a stipulation doesn't piss anyone off as much as hearing her talk about their long walks and picnics together does, does it?

which why IMO this case is only about emotions and nothing more...IMO the DA banked on that jury getting pissed when the heard those tapes... even tho there is absolutely no evidence of a crime on them, the DA knew that wouldn't matter once they heard "Euro-Trip" and all the 'honey/baby's'. the DA knew that was how they would win, not in the evidence, b/c even Jacobson said that was so lacking that they needed the WT in the 1st place..so the only way to win with the same (lacking) evidence was to make the jury hate Scott.... and that's what Amber and her tapes did.. nothing probative at all, 100% prejudicial IMO...


I totally disagree ekg. I learned from the tapes that the murder was premeditated, no doubt the judge agreed.

[TopGunner]

nothing against you CW, but I pray you're never on a jury for me or someone I know....:chicken: :tongue:

But this post tells me you're the kind of person who sits back, looks at the defense table and says "Ok, prove he didn't do it!"....... that's not how it's done here..... it's not the defenses job to prove anything to you...it's the State and ONLY the states job to prove anything...

MG did pull out all the stops...and up until Amber,IMO, he was winning.... after Amber there was nothing that could have won that case for him... and Amber proved nothing but Scott was a jerk-cheater.. but that was enough to convict him..


I never thought Amber personally had any impact on the jury, other than coming across as honest and sincere. All she did was capture ISP on tape allowing him to hang himself.

[ekg]

snipe

So ... what's your point? :shrug:

. the point was "relevance"....

[adnoid]

...No one sits back and says "okay, prove he didn't do it!"...In fact, if the defendant doesn't have to prove anything, why would he be calling any of his own witnesses at all?

Here's the deal.

The jury starts out presuming him innocent. After the Prosecution's CIC the Defense will always say to the judge that the Prosecution hasn't proved it's point - and sometimes the judge will concur and dismiss the charges. Geragos so moved - it would malpractice not to. This judge did not dismiss - correctly.

AT THIS POINT the jury has heard ALL the evidence against the defendant that is needed to convict him. The Prosecution will not have planned to introduce new evidence after they rest. So if the jury is convinced by this (even though they are not yet to discuss it) the job of the Defense is to reverse that position and introduce doubt. If the jury is not convinced nothing the defense does should change their position - although it is possible, I guess, through gross incompetence, that a jury unconvinced by the prosecution's case could be swayed by the defense to vote guilty.

The jury does NOT have to presume the defendant innocent after they start to hear the evidence, they only have to start out that way. Under the fiction some here promulgate nobody could ever be found guilty because these advocates maintain that NOTHING can EVER change the presumption of innocence at ANY point. They are wrong.

A Defense that relies on the Prosecution not making any points is taking a serious risk if the evidence is convincing. Geragos DID put on a defense, IMO the best he could with what he had to work with - the jury just didn't buy it.

The jury's decision is not subject to appeal - just questions of law. There will be lots of items that will, as some put it, "be a part of the appeal". But they will have no effect.

[Otter]

I think his lies hurt him immensely..... but I'm not debating you on that issue, I debating you on whether the WT are admissible to prove only those lies.

I don't need to read their book Lavindar, I have the TS themselves and they speak more than anyones book can...

yes, I fully believe the jury convicted him b/c he was a jerk-cheater-liar...... and I would be astonished if any of them had walked out and admitted that.

c'mon, you don't really think they'd admit that do you?

and call me crazy... but I think a jerk-liar-cheater deserves divorce or a beating... but not the death penalty..:no:

That's very sad. You truly believe that 12 people sentenced a man to death for the sole reason that he cheated on his pregnant wife? That not one person on that jury would hang it due to the purported "lack of evidence"? You seriously believe they took this solemn duty so flippantly?

I find that unbelievable that you would even fathom that thought, even though I've heard it over and over, and what could they possibly admit to? You believe in something not true.

[TopGunner]

and yet the jury still disagrees with you..

if they did agree, then his "one plan" to kill her would have also killed him.... but the 2nd degree conviction proves they don't agree that was the case...

which, again.... I think will be an appealable issue..

Nope. What they said, and I totally agree, is that they were 100% certain that he PLANNED out the murder of his wife. They could not be 100% certain that Conner was an equal target, i.e., planned out. However, they were 100% convinced that he murdered Conner by murdering his mother.

Makes perfect sense, and just goes to show you how fair and honest they were. If they were truly bias and part of this grand conspiracy plan, they wouldn't have hesitated giving ISP 2 counts of 1st degree murder.:no:

[Otter]

. the point was "relevance"....

What's more relevant than a jury in a DP case seeing a screaming headline in the courtroom that the President of the US considered him guilty? :shrug:

IIRC, Nixon was pretty popular at the time.

[deputydi]

<snip>lying does not prove murder.

IMO the tapes have no probative value at all.. nothing was learned from them to help as an investigation tool.which is what they are for.

<snip>
You're right, lying does not prove murder. What it does show is certain character traits of an individual who is accused of a crime. Of course his family is going to say he's the greatest guy who ever walked the streets of Modesto and Laci's friends and family are going to remember things a little differently. With the tapes, you have Scott -- in his own words -- courting Amber. He confirms several things that, without the tapes, would probably be considered the words of an angry girlfriend. Scott leave NO doubt in anyone's mind that he is an individual who is not above telling outrageous lies in order to achieve a goal. These lies don't prove he's a murderer -- it's only part of the picture being painted by the pros. Why can't you NGs understand how a circumstantial case is built?

The tapes were an "investigation tool" while the investigation was ongoing. As soon as the trial began and J Delucci ruled parts were admissible and parts were not, they became EVIDENCE.

[ekg]

I never thought Amber personally had any impact on the jury, other than coming across as honest and sincere. All she did was capture ISP on tape allowing him to hang himself.


the problem is.... we'll never know whether she and the tapes had any impact or not... it's easy to sit back and say now, after we've heard them, that they didn't matter.... and to be honest, who would admit that they did have an impact?

I think it was an error that she and the tapes were allowed.... I've posted the law as to why I believe this...:shrug:

[cookiewench]

why does it amaze you that ppl think he doesn't have to present evidence? when he doesn't... it's not up to him to prove anything.....

but b/c our system has turned so 'anti-defendant' in last few yrs... it has morphed into the system you are talking about... where the Defense has to solve the crime for LE and prove their client is innocent....

it's not Scott or Marks job to tell you who did it...... it's only their job to sit there while the State proves to you that the Defendant did it... and if the State is lacking in that area, the only thing the defense needs to do is point that out to the jury and then rest.... b/c a jury should be impartial and only find guilt on pertinent evidence..... not affairs and lies..

but we know from the OJ trial that juries like shock and awe and slogans from the Defense..and if they don't get that.... well then they'll just convict..IMO anyway..

Yep - it amazes me that people think that. It's only in theory that the defendent can just sit there and challenge the state to prove that he committed the crime. The reality is much different, and anyone who's on trial for his life would have to be insane not to bring in everything that he could that would show his "side of the story".

You and I both know that no one has ever claimed that it was Scott or Geragos's job to "tell who did it".

Just like the state does not have to prove motive - you can bet that if they can, they will.

The problem here as I see it is that you have decided what the jury was thinking, you've decided on your own that the jury was not impartial (with no proof, I might add).

[ekg]

What's more relevant than a jury in a DP case seeing a screaming headline in the courtroom that the President of the US considered him guilty? :shrug:

IIRC, Nixon was pretty popular at the time.

I never said it wasn't relevant otter....both points were...you just asked what my point was thats all...and 'relevance' was my point.

[Lavindar]

no, but LE did....

One time versus how many by the defense? I suggest you find another source for your information as scottisinnocent published many lies when it first opened. I don't know if she ever corrected those lies.....but I am sure you believe such outstanding writers as "noted investigator" David Sween who said that Scott shot Laci in the head and "domestic violence" expert Natia Taze, who volunteered in a women's shelter. None of these people can be located and there is nothing on the web from them other than opinions, no credentials whatsoever.

[TopGunner]

I think his lies hurt him immensely..... but I'm not debating you on that issue, I debating you on whether the WT are admissible to prove only those lies.

I don't need to read their book Lavindar, I have the TS themselves and they speak more than anyones book can...

yes, I fully believe the jury convicted him b/c he was a jerk-cheater-liar...... and I would be astonished if any of them had walked out and admitted that.

c'mon, you don't really think they'd admit that do you?

and call me crazy... but I think a jerk-liar-cheater deserves divorce or a beating... but not the death penalty..:no:

I'll tell you why I belive them ekg - because I am a pretty good judge of character. I can FEEL a dishonest, insincere, full-of-themselves JERK, a mile away.

I have listened oh........so..........carefully to these jurors. I have watched their body language, I've looked in their eyes. Forget the words they speak, although they back up my conclusion. Each and everyone experience great distress. Not a one of them were happy to find him guilty. Not one of them enjoyed the experience. Not a single one expressed doubt, although several wanted to doubt.

I could never, would never, EVER, under any circumstances want to decide the fate of another human being. Not even OJ, but if I had to take the oath and sit on a trial a million dollars CA$H couldn't make me say what I didn't believe, and this is exactly what I feel about this jury.

The attacks on them are pathetic. They don't deserve it, they only did exactly what was asked of them. This is also why if ISP was given another trial, the results will be the same.

[Lavindar]

Yep - it amazes me that people think that. It's only in theory that the defendent can just sit there and challenge the state to prove that he committed the crime. The reality is much different, and anyone who's on trial for his life would have to be insane not to bring in everything that he could that would show his "side of the story".

You and I both know that no one has ever claimed that it was Scott or Geragos's job to "tell who did it".

Just like the state does not have to prove motive - you can bet that if they can, they will.

The problem here as I see it is that you have decided what the jury was thinking, you've decided on your own that the jury was not impartial (with no proof, I might add).

Yet Mark Garegos PUBLICLY stated that he woudl reveal the real killer and I believe he even gave a timeline of three weeks - that was way before the trial. Not even OJ's dream team promised that.

[Lavindar]

and yet the jury still disagrees with you..if they did agree, then his "one plan" to kill her would have also killed him.... but the 2nd degree conviction proves they don't agree that was the case...

which, again.... I think will be an appealable issue..you know this because ?????????????? Seems you purport to know what the jury did and give no sources

[TopGunner]

you know this because ?????????????? Seems you purport to know what the jury did and give no sources

No worries Lav - it's clear why the jury convicted as they did, and as I already mentioned, it only shed light on their honesty.:biggrin:

[Lavindar]

I totally disagree ekg. I learned from the tapes that the murder was premeditated, no doubt the judge agreed.

Didn't Scott ADMIT on the Jan 6th tape that he did indeed predict the loss of his wife to Amber?

[Miss Bootsie]

b/c a jury should be impartial and only find guilt on pertinent evidence..... not affairs and lies..



Pertinent evidence such as this.....


Scott -"I lost my wife"-Dec. 06 Shawn Sibley

Scott - Search for boat - Dec. 07 Lydell Wall

Scott - "I lost my wife" - Dec. 09 Amber Frey

Scott - Purchased boat - Dec. 09 Bruce Peterson

Laci - Disappeared on 12-24-02

Scott - Boat - SF Bay - 12-24-02

Bodies - found ashore - same vicinity---- Scott - boat - 12-24

Do you ever take notice the SII's are the people that make the most out of the taped conversations?

It's as if the facts and evidence I listed above don't even exist.

[I'mSun]

Pertinent evidence such as this.....



Do you ever take notice the SII's are the people that make the most out of the taped conversations?

It's as if the facts and evidence I listed above don't even exist.It is because they don't want any facts and evidence to exist. Without facts and evidence, there is no case.

[deputydi]

Didn't Scott ADMIT on the Jan 6th tape that he did indeed predict the loss of his wife to Amber?
Yes, he did.

[I'mSun]

Nope. What they said, and I totally agree, is that they were 100% certain that he PLANNED out the murder of his wife. They could not be 100% certain that Conner was an equal target, i.e., planned out. However, they were 100% convinced that he murdered Conner by murdering his mother.

Makes perfect sense, and just goes to show you how fair and honest they were. If they were truly bias and part of this grand conspiracy plan, they wouldn't have hesitated giving ISP 2 counts of 1st degree murder.:no:Thanks for answering, TG! ITA with you that Scott murdered Laci, and thereby murdered Conner. The jury took their time and came to the right decision. This won't be an issue for appeal.

[Miss Bootsie]

Not sure where you are getting your WT info from, but I disagree with you!

I disagree as well, and also find it absolutely amazing that a lay person would think their opinion is above and beyond that of a seasoned Judge in such a position as Judge D.:eek:

I sense an attitude that all the Law professionals involved in the trial, including Judge Deluchhi, are ignorant of California,Federal Law, and case Law.

In the case of prejudicial vs probative, the appeals court will determine the evidence in this case to be overwhelming.

Even if, the Appellate court finds the tapes were prejudicial, they will determine the evidence to be harmless error. imo

The Judges will be of the opinion, the remaining evidence is such, the Jurors did not have to depend on the tapes to find SP guilty. imo

Had there been a trial without bodies, or the evidence was weak that Scott put the boat in the Bay on Dec. 24th, I might then agree, SP has some viable appeal issues.

[Miss Bootsie]

you know this because ?????????????? Seems you purport to know what the jury did and give no sources

People on this board can claim to read the minds of the Jurors, but you can bet your booty, the Appeals court won't go there.

They don't like to question why the Jurors made their decisions.

There is more than one possibility of why the Jurors voted 1st for Laci and 2nd for Conner.

[cookiewench]

OT:

Remember the sample book (I believe it was for handpainted murals) that the yoga instructor had lent to Laci and that just disappeared?

I think there's something important there that none of us will ever figure out. Things don't just "disappear" from a tidy, uncluttered house like Laci's.

Something must have gotten on it during the murder - perhaps Laci was sitting on the sofa (the one Scott kept vaccuming in front of) looking at it when he strangled her from behind (although the spilled Ranch Dressing on the counter indicates that he may have strangled her from behind while she was eating).

Anyway - for some reason, Scott took care to thoroughly dispose of that sample book - maybe in the fireplace or at the bottom of the bay.

[Miss Bootsie]

the problem is.... we'll never know whether she and the tapes had any impact or not... it's easy to sit back and say now, after we've heard them, that they didn't matter.... and to be honest, who would admit that they did have an impact?

I think it was an error that she and the tapes were allowed.... I've posted the law as to why I believe this...:shrug:



So, The Jurors had to be prejudiced against Scott to find him guilty.

If the Jurors had not been prejudiced against Scott, they would have found him "not guilty" based on the facts and evidence below?




Scott -"I lost my wife"-Dec. 06 Shawn Sibley

Scott - Search for boat - Dec. 07 Lydell Wall

Scott - "I lost my wife" - Dec. 09 Amber Frey

Scott - Purchased boat - Dec. 09 Bruce Peterson

Laci - Disappeared on 12-24-02

Scott - Boat - SF Bay - 12-24-02

Bodies - found ashore - same vicinity---- Scott - boat - 12-24


Conner protected in utero Dr. Peterson

Laci's body - marine environment Dr. Galloway

I don't believe the Appellate Court Judges will share your opinion.

[Rachel Cory]

Which one?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Bedivere.jpg

http://www.mgmweddingcars.co.uk/Cars/Excalibur1.jpg

I hope you mean the second one. And I quote: "Strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony...you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you...If I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away"

ETA: Link to source. (http://www.garnersclassics.com/qmonty.htm) Not that this will have any effect on Scott's appeal.

Are you making fun of me? What Spencer posted, I couldn't have said better, myself. I don't poke fun at the Gs. They see what they see, and I see what I see. My son, who is 7 months and 9 days older than Scott, has a friend who is exactly like Scott. All men do not fall into the carnal category. Some are 95% spiritual. This is how I view the man who now sits on death row at San Quentin. "I'm a horny ******* because I haven't had any for WEEKS because my soulmate has cut me off, because her hormones have changed so dramatically that I feel I have "lost" her and I don't understand what the hell is happening with her, because I have never been 'pregnant' before and there is a tall blonde that a business associate keeps bugging me to call....." , the remaining 5% winds up becoming the worst victim of circumstance I have ever known. This is a gentle, soft-spoken, INNOCENT man, caught up in something he didn't even know existed in life. You believe that, as educated as he is, he isn't intelligent enough to be able to rid himself of a wife he didn't want anymore, and stupid enough to tell the entire world where he'd dumped her body. Now, that is really beyond belief. I knew, on December 27, 2002, that, if Laci was found anywhere near San Francisco Bay, the man was innocent. That is what makes sense to me. Thus, the research, which led to the facts in this sad story. The facts will have a positive impact on the appeal. Some of us won't be intimidated like Geragos was. Some of us aren't scared of the truth. Some of us know that, unless the Lord allows it, THEY CAN'T LAY A HAND ON US.

[Rachel Cory]

According to Kristen's statement to Brocchini, she was driving on Covena on Dec 24th around 9:39 am..

You might be thinking of "Martha Aguilar".. she lived on Covena few blocks from Laci's house..she reported seeing Laci walking McKenzie on Dec 24th..
In his statement, Distaso says Kristen Reed lived on Covena, right? We both know this isn't so. And how did she come to be driving south on Covena from where she really lives, and why? Quite a round-about way to go by Scott and Laci's to say "Hi" and then not do it. What was she really doing? And WHY? Oh, wait...maybe she was checking out the 'vacant' house next door! Of course, that must be it.

[deputydi]

For the NGs who still believe the wiretaps will be an important appeals issue, read this . . .
Both federal and California law enforcement officials may eavesdrop on and record telephone conversations without a court order under the so-called "one party consent provision" (18 USC 2511(2)(s); California Penal Code 633). In other words, if state or federal authorities have the consent of one party to a conversation (such as a government informant), the conversation may be monitored. This provision applies only to eavesdropping by law enforcement officials.
http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs9-wrtp.htm

J Delucci knew full well what he was doing.

[Rachel Cory]

[QUOTE]You don't remember it Lavindar, because it didn't happen. They didn't even comment when Geragoss put a headless/arm&legless body in the boat for the world to see (he should be locked up with the killer for that move).

And it was Allred who made certain that the world saw it. We must remember that.

[TopGunner]

[QUOTE=USAHICK;8930588]

And it was Allred who made certain that the world saw it. We must remember that.

Sorry Rach, but this statement - that it was Allred's fault that the world knew what Geragos was up to, is right up there with people blaming Amber for spilling the beans about the affair.

Allred and Frey were just the messengers, and both told the truth. :seeya:

[deputydi]

And it was Allred who made certain that the world saw it. We must remember that.
Why do you suppose MG pulled such a tasteless stunt in the first place?

[Otter]

Rachel Cory said:

Some are 95% spiritual. This is how I view the man who now sits on death row at San Quentin.

Some of us aren't scared of the truth. Some of us know that, unless the Lord allows it, THEY CAN'T LAY A HAND ON US.

What are you talking about? I mean that with the utmost respect. And since you bring up the LORD, I ask it in love.

Jesus tells us that we should act as if we are all chained with the prisoner. However, He was speaking of people imprinsoned by persecution, not prosection. Jesus speaks of being obedient to authority, because His Father allowed these people in authority to rise to their positions.

Enough Christian doctrine. :) Whether any of us have a fake diploma or not.

RC, the excuses you make for SP have gone so many times around the block...they don't mean a thing. Claim it and name it doesn't work in this case. Do you even read the posts here that aren't directed at you? Do you have any understanding where we G's are coming from? No, not IMO.

Its not about s*x. Its about the fact that he wanted her gone and he planned it with malice aforethought and he carried it out with malice. HE WANTED HER GONE.

Ugh, if you want to think he was convicted for a fling and refuse to connect the HUGE dots... more's the pity. John Couey didn't formulate premeditation as much as SP, IMO. Would you defend him?

[enlightenme]

OT:

Remember the sample book (I believe it was for handpainted murals) that the yoga instructor had lent to Laci and that just disappeared?

I think there's something important there that none of us will ever figure out. Things don't just "disappear" from a tidy, uncluttered house like Laci's.

Something must have gotten on it during the murder - perhaps Laci was sitting on the sofa (the one Scott kept vaccuming in front of) looking at it when he strangled her from behind (although the spilled Ranch Dressing on the counter indicates that he may have strangled her from behind while she was eating).

Anyway - for some reason, Scott took care to thoroughly dispose of that sample book - maybe in the fireplace or at the bottom of the bay.

I'd forgotten all about the sample book!

I want to play SII for a minute:

Was the yoga instructor's alibi checked? Was she thoroughly investigated? After all, she did LIE on the stand! Maybe there was something in that book that incriminated someone and Laci had to be silenced because she saw it!

Did Kim McGregor steal the book? Maybe all the other stuff she took was just a diversion!

Did the yoga instructor know the Renfros? So many unanswered questions!

J/K.......:biggrin:

[enlightenme]

Are you making fun of me? What Spencer posted, I couldn't have said better, myself. I don't poke fun at the Gs. They see what they see, and I see what I see. My son, who is 7 months and 9 days older than Scott, has a friend who is exactly like Scott. All men do not fall into the carnal category. Some are 95% spiritual. This is how I view the man who now sits on death row at San Quentin. "I'm a horny ******* because I haven't had any for WEEKS because my soulmate has cut me off, because her hormones have changed so dramatically that I feel I have "lost" her and I don't understand what the hell is happening with her, because I have never been 'pregnant' before and there is a tall blonde that a business associate keeps bugging me to call....." , the remaining 5% winds up becoming the worst victim of circumstance I have ever known. This is a gentle, soft-spoken, INNOCENT man, caught up in something he didn't even know existed in life. You believe that, as educated as he is, he isn't intelligent enough to be able to rid himself of a wife he didn't want anymore, and stupid enough to tell the entire world where he'd dumped her body. Now, that is really beyond belief. I knew, on December 27, 2002, that, if Laci was found anywhere near San Francisco Bay, the man was innocent. That is what makes sense to me. Thus, the research, which led to the facts in this sad story. The facts will have a positive impact on the appeal. Some of us won't be intimidated like Geragos was. Some of us aren't scared of the truth. Some of us know that, unless the Lord allows it, THEY CAN'T LAY A HAND ON US.


So Geragos threw the case because he was intimidated?

:confused:

[Rachel Cory]

Why do you suppose MG pulled such a tasteless stunt in the first place?
Frankly, I have no idea. Maybe he was hoping to do his 'experiment' in the Bay with these props and didn't want them cluttering up his property elsewhere. I lost all respect for Mark Geragos when he wasn't in Redwood City for the verdict. Surely, there was someone in LA who could have stood in for him there. He's a jerk and a coward, IMO.

[deputydi]

I'd forgotten all about the sample book!

I want to play SII for a minute:

Was the yoga instructor's alibi checked? Was she thoroughly investigated? After all, she did LIE on the stand! Maybe there was something in that book that incriminated someone and Laci had to be silenced because she saw it!

Did Kim McGregor steal the book? Maybe all the other stuff she took was just a diversion!

Did the yoga instructor know the Renfros? So many unanswered questions!

J/K.......:biggrin:
I hope you're happy. You've given them a suspect even THEY hadn't considered yet. :punch:

[Rachel Cory]

Ugh, if you want to think he was convicted for a fling and refuse to connect the HUGE dots... more's the pity. John Couey didn't formulate premeditation as much as SP, IMO. Would you defend him?
I see your dots, Otter. I really do. But what you don't know is that there are other, more profound dots that you do not know exist. Because of the appeal, they cannot be connected here. I'm truly sorry. If the Gs in this community were privy to them, many would change their minds. As for Couey, I'd do more to him than hang a stone around his neck, and I think you know what I mean.

[Mysteri]

I'd forgotten all about the sample book!

I want to play SII for a minute:

Was the yoga instructor's alibi checked? Was she thoroughly investigated? After all, she did LIE on the stand! Maybe there was something in that book that incriminated someone and Laci had to be silenced because she saw it!

Did Kim McGregor steal the book? Maybe all the other stuff she took was just a diversion!

Did the yoga instructor know the Renfros? So many unanswered questions!

J/K.......:biggrin:

An innocuous mural design book incriminated someone? It was coded?

The Renfro family were more the World Wrestling event types. They probably think that yoga comes in lots of flavours and that New Age means altering your ID.

J/K back !

imo

:chicken:

[Lavindar]

In his statement, Distaso says Kristen Reed lived on Covena, right? We both know this isn't so. And how did she come to be driving south on Covena from where she really lives, and why? Quite a round-about way to go by Scott and Laci's to say "Hi" and then not do it. What was she really doing? And WHY? Oh, wait...maybe she was checking out the 'vacant' house next door! Of course, that must be it.


Makes you wonder why Kristen Reed wasn't checked out, doesn't it. And why she didn't report seeing that mysterious van that you claim the inspector, the Medinas, and Scott saw. Do you have a link to that information or is it only in your imagination?

In case you forgot, the van snatched Laci at the end of Covena as she was walking MacKenzie at 10:38.

Funny, did they then take the time to return Mac to the yard??????????

[enlightenme]

I see your dots, Otter. I really do. But what you don't know is that there are other, more profound dots that you do not know exist. Because of the appeal, they cannot be connected here. I'm truly sorry. If the Gs in this community were privy to them, many would change their minds. As for Couey, I'd do more to him than hang a stone around his neck, and I think you know what I mean.

Ooooh, the secret appeal evidence.

I'm 100% positive that whatever info. you claim to have would not change my mind about Scott's guilt. Only a confession that was believable by "the real killer" could do that. That's not going to happen and Scott knows it.

MOO

[enlightenme]

<<snipped>>This is a gentle, soft-spoken, INNOCENT man, caught up in something he didn't even know existed in life.<<snipped>>


Yeah, I guess he WAS pretty soft spoken when he said "F - - - You Rita Crosby". He could have said it much more harsher.

I'm sure when he was flipping of LE that were following him that he was just waving a warm greeting.

JMO

[Rachel Cory]

Makes you wonder why Kristen Reed wasn't checked out, doesn't it. And why she didn't report seeing that mysterious van that you claim the inspector, the Medinas, and Scott saw. Do you have a link to that information or is it only in your imagination?

In case you forgot, the van snatched Laci at the end of Covena as she was walking MacKenzie at 10:38.

Funny, did they then take the time to return Mac to the yard??????????
Oh, I'm sure Kristen was checked out. And I believe Karen Servas put McKenzie in the backyard, just like she said she did. I just don't believe she did it at 10:18. I also believe Kristen Reed saw the van. Sorry, no link for you.

[adnoid]

Are you making fun of me?...

I'm sorry if my intent was expressed ambiguously.

...What Spencer posted, I couldn't have said better, myself...

I have no reason to doubt you.

...I knew, on December 27, 2002, that, if Laci was found anywhere near San Francisco Bay, the man was innocent...

I'm glad you didn't rush to judgment based on partial information. Those of us that believe Scott is guilty are often accused of doing so, rather than waiting for the facts to become evident.

[adnoid]

...But what you don't know is that there are other, more profound dots that you do not know exist...

So, since this is the appeal thread, how exactly will these be used in Scott's appeal? The cannot be in the trial record or we would all know about them. Please enlighten us!

[TopGunner]

I see your dots, Otter. I really do. But what you don't know is that there are other, more profound dots that you do not know exist. Because of the appeal, they cannot be connected here. I'm truly sorry. If the Gs in this community were privy to them, many would change their minds. As for Couey, I'd do more to him than hang a stone around his neck, and I think you know what I mean.


Sorry Rach - this one isn't going to fly. If there were "dots" ;) out there that would change our minds, he'd be free NOW. Nobody would wait untill 2011 (per the P's newsletter) to present these exonerating dots.

They don't exist. :patriot:

[I'mSun]

I'm sure when he was flipping of LE that were following him that he was just waving a warm greeting.

JMOBeing an animal lover, he was just trying to show LE what the birdie looks like :D

[adnoid]

...In case you forgot, the van snatched Laci at the end of Covena as she was walking MacKenzie at 10:38.

Funny, did they then take the time to return Mac to the yard??????????

You know, was MacKenzie ever fully checked out?

[Sturgeon_Moon]

I'm sorry if my intent was expressed ambiguously.



I have no reason to doubt you.



I'm glad you didn't rush to judgment based on partial information. Those of us that believe Scott is guilty are often accused of doing so, rather than waiting for the facts to become evident.

What a great post!

[cookiewench]

I see your dots, Otter. I really do. But what you don't know is that there are other, more profound dots that you do not know exist. Because of the appeal, they cannot be connected here. I'm truly sorry. If the Gs in this community were privy to them, many would change their minds. As for Couey, I'd do more to him than hang a stone around his neck, and I think you know what I mean.


Are you kidding?????

When a convicted murderer has some new evidence (or whatever) that he thinks will help him - he screams it from the prison rooftop!

He wants as much publicity as possible. He contacts The Innocence Project and hopes that they publicize it.

They use the publicity to gain advocates for themselves, to get investigative reporters interested in their case, and to get the public on their side signing petitions of whatever.

[TopGunner]

Being an animal lover, he was just trying to show LE what the birdie looks like :D

I thought he didn't have a birdie? :eek:

[Rachel Cory]

I'm sorry if my intent was expressed ambiguously.



I have no reason to doubt you.



I'm glad you didn't rush to judgment based on partial information. Those of us that believe Scott is guilty are often accused of doing so, rather than waiting for the facts to become evident.
I guess I should have said "probably innocent" here, but I watched and listened for something to convince me, some evidence of guilt. I saw nothing.

[TopGunner]

I'm sorry if my intent was expressed ambiguously.



I have no reason to doubt you.



I'm glad you didn't rush to judgment based on partial information. Those of us that believe Scott is guilty are often accused of doing so, rather than waiting for the facts to become evident.


:beer:

Great post !

[I'mSun]

I thought he didn't have a birdie? :eek:Actually, he does, but it is too small to be an appeal issue.

[TopGunner]

Actually, he does, but it is too small to be an appeal issue.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

Now THAT was FUNNY!!!!!!! :lol:

[I'mSun]

I'm sorry if my intent was expressed ambiguously.



I have no reason to doubt you.



I'm glad you didn't rush to judgment based on partial information. Those of us that believe Scott is guilty are often accused of doing so, rather than waiting for the facts to become evident.Excellent post, Adnoid. :beer:

[adnoid]

Actually, he does, but it is too small to be an appeal issue.

de minimis non curat lex.

[I'mSun]

I see your dots, Otter. I really do. But what you don't know is that there are other, more profound dots that you do not know exist. Because of the appeal, they cannot be connected here. I'm truly sorry. If the Gs in this community were privy to them, many would change their minds. I don't understand. If there is some exciting, new exonerating evidence, why are they keeping it a secret and making Scott sit on DR until 2011? Why don't they present it NOW and get him out of there? :shrug:

[Lavindar]

BTW does anyone have the address on Scott Avenue where Scott and Laci lived. I'm doing some research.

[adnoid]

...Why don't they present it NOW and get him out of there? :shrug:

Because if they told it wouldn't be a secret!

[I'mSun]

Because if they told it wouldn't be a secret!Oh silly me - of course, you are correct!

[Miss Bootsie]

Actually, he does, but it is too small to be an appeal issue.

.http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/rofl.gif.

[enlightenme]

Frankly, I have no idea. Maybe he was hoping to do his 'experiment' in the Bay with these props and didn't want them cluttering up his property elsewhere. I lost all respect for Mark Geragos when he wasn't in Redwood City for the verdict. Surely, there was someone in LA who could have stood in for him there. He's a jerk and a coward, IMO.

Geragos had already done his "experiment" in the bay with that exact boat and dummy. The other "dummy" he used was his own employee, wearing weights to simulate Scott's weight on Dec. 24th, 2002. Of course he waited until a long break in the case, in August, to do this experiment so the conditions on the bay were nothing like they would have been in December.

It was obvious that the person attempting to throw the dummy overboard was TRYING to make the boat capsize (which it did not, but it did take on water).

Judge D. said this about Geragos' boat experiment video:

"Getting back to this experiment for just, not the experiment but the, the court's refusal to permit the experiment proposed by Mr. Geragos about the boat. At the time, and the record is clear on this, I looked at the experiment of the, of Raffi in this boat, attempting to dispose of this hundred fifty pound weight, and I did point out that this boat had this plywood in the bottom of it. And I don't know how that would affect the stability of the boat, but there was plywood. Mr. Geragos was prepared to present to the court the testimony that, on that particular date that that's, the place where the experiment was conducted was in the general area where there was some testimony where the body would have been dumped in order to cover that particular part. You can't, you couldn't recreate the way the Bay was on December the 24th. So there was these issues here about, and the other thing is it's, it's, well, it's, it should be common sense that you don't stand up in a boat with a hundred and fifty pound weight and put your legs astride the boat and attempt to dump the weight over the side. You just don't do that in a boat because the boat's, boats are not that stable. And so that's not the way you would do it. And, in any event, I was of the opinion that, based upon what I saw, that this boat experiment that Mr. Geragos was proposing would have misled the jury, and I was of the opinion, and it's in the record, that there wasn't a significant foundation for the admission of that experiment and give that to the jury."

There's those words again - - common sense. Seems some people have it and others don't. :shrug:

MOO

[Lavindar]

Geragos had already done his "experiment" in the bay with that exact boat and dummy. The other "dummy" he used was his own employee, wearing weights to simulate Scott's weight on Dec. 24th, 2002. Of course he waited until a long break in the case, in August, to do this experiment so the conditions on the bay were nothing like they would have been in December.

It was obvious that the person attempting to throw the dummy overboard was TRYING to make the boat capsize (which it did not, but it did take on water).

Judge D. said this about Geragos' boat experiment video:

"Getting back to this experiment for just, not the experiment but the, the court's refusal to permit the experiment proposed by Mr. Geragos about the boat. At the time, and the record is clear on this, I looked at the experiment of the, of Raffi in this boat, attempting to dispose of this hundred fifty pound weight, and I did point out that this boat had this plywood in the bottom of it. And I don't know how that would affect the stability of the boat, but there was plywood. Mr. Geragos was prepared to present to the court the testimony that, on that particular date that that's, the place where the experiment was conducted was in the general area where there was some testimony where the body would have been dumped in order to cover that particular part. You can't, you couldn't recreate the way the Bay was on December the 24th. So there was these issues here about, and the other thing is it's, it's, well, it's, it should be common sense that you don't stand up in a boat with a hundred and fifty pound weight and put your legs astride the boat and attempt to dump the weight over the side. You just don't do that in a boat because the boat's, boats are not that stable. And so that's not the way you would do it. And, in any event, I was of the opinion that, based upon what I saw, that this boat experiment that Mr. Geragos was proposing would have misled the jury, and I was of the opinion, and it's in the record, that there wasn't a significant foundation for the admission of that experiment and give that to the jury."

There's those words again - - common sense. Seems some people have it and others don't. :shrug:

MOO

Geragos had to buy that boat because his little experiment ruined the engine. He had it stored at his hotel until he put it in his parking lot. I recall it was Greta who discovered it.

[Lavindar]

Exactly!!... 3 attorneys agreed that Scott will most likely win his appeal because of the boat experiment... Yes, three attornies WHO DO NOT PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA agreed that Scott will win his appeal and one attorney WHO DOES PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA who said he won't.

[Lavindar]

I guess I should have said "probably innocent" here, but I watched and listened for something to convince me, some evidence of guilt. I saw nothing.
The fact that you weren't convinced means nothing in the appeal. The jurors that heard and saw ALL the evidence were convinced. Did you see ALL of it - did you hear ALL of it?

[TopGunner]

The fact that you weren't convinced means nothing in the appeal. The jurors that heard and saw ALL the evidence were convinced. Did you see ALL of it - did you hear ALL of it?


ITA Lavindar. People can accuse and speculate, and of course if they're a NG, they're going to automatically ASSUME that by their standards there wasn't enough evidence (or whatever), but clearly there was. The evidence convinced me, the Rocha's, member's of ISP's family, all his and Laci's friends, it also convinced the entire country, the talking heads, Oprah, Dr. Phil, President Bush...............and most importantly of all, 12 jurors. :patriot:

[enlightenme]

ITA Lavindar. People can accuse and speculate, and of course if they're a NG, they're going to automatically ASSUME that by their standards there wasn't enough evidence (or whatever), but clearly there was. The evidence convinced me, the Rocha's, member's of ISP's family, all his and Laci's friends, it also convinced the entire country, the talking heads, Oprah, Dr. Phil, President Bush...............and most importantly of all, 12 jurors. :patriot:

Scott is so obviously guilty that his name has become part of the American culture. It's synonymous with "wife and baby killer". I have heard his name mentioned on several TV series now. I think one of them was a Law & Order episode where a suspect said, "I'm no Scott Peterson!"

Every time another husband or boyfriend kills their spouse/girlfriend, Scott's name is brought up again in the news.

He must be so proud to be so well known. ;)

[Miss Bootsie]

Yes, three attornies WHO DO NOT PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA agreed that Scott will win his appeal and one attorney WHO DOES PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA who said he won't.

On the subject of appeal issues regarding prejudicial evidence, I have read the following opinion time and again when researching case law in all circuits.

When giving an opinion on any error, the Appeal Courts always consider the substantialness of the evidence.

If the appeals court determines there were errors, I believe the substantial evidence presented at SP's trial will have a huge impact.

i.e. of Appeal court opinion:

Though we do not see any error, in light of the overwhelming evidence present at trail, any error would have been harmless. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52 (a) ("any error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded"); Long, 574 F. 2d at 772 ("The evidence of guilt in this particular case is so substantial that the legal error may be considered harmless"); Govt. of Virgin Islands v. Toto, 529 F.2d 278, 283–84 (3d Cir. 1976) (noting the test for harmless error is whether it is highly probable that evidentiary error did not contribute to conviction) .

[attorneywan2be]

I guess I should have said "probably innocent" here, but I watched and listened for something to convince me, some evidence of guilt. I saw nothing.

Same here..in fact, the evidence that was presented convinced me of his innocence...I have zero doubt that he will get his conviction overturned...there is no way the court of appeal will let this travesty of justice stand...

[Miss Bootsie]

Same here..in fact, the evidence that was presented convinced me of his innocence...I have zero doubt that he will get his conviction overturned...there is no way the court of appeal will let this travesty of justice stand...

You mean this evidence convinced you of his innocence? :confused:


The Judges won't be speculating on the "could be's" or the "may have's" that you OP's do.

The Judges won't give consideration to the "burglars may have done it", or hmmmm,"maybe the body was stored in a bathtub".

This is the substantial evidence the Appeals court will be looking at.


Scott - Search for boat - Dec. 07 Lydell Wall

Scott - "I lost my wife" - Dec. 09 Amber Frey

Scott - Purchased boat - Dec. 09 Bruce Peterson

Laci - Disappeared on 12-24-02

Scott - Boat - SF Bay - 12-24-02

Bodies - found ashore - same vicinity---- Scott - boat - 12-24

Conner in utero - Expert: Dr. Brian Peterson

Trajectory created for Conner – Expert: Dr. Cheng

Laci – marine environment – Expert: Dr. Galloway

Opinion will be "No error" or "Substantial evidence = harmless error" imo

[TopGunner]

Same here..in fact, the evidence that was presented convinced me of his innocence...I have zero doubt that he will get his conviction overturned...there is no way the court of appeal will let this travesty of justice stand...


What evidence was presented that convinced you of his innocence?

[Miss Bootsie]

ITA Lavindar. People can accuse and speculate, and of course if they're a NG, they're going to automatically ASSUME that by their standards there wasn't enough evidence (or whatever), but clearly there was. The evidence convinced me, the Rocha's, member's of ISP's family, all his and Laci's friends, it also convinced the entire country, the talking heads, Oprah, Dr. Phil, President Bush...............and most importantly of all, 12 jurors. :patriot:


http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/hand_wave-ani.gifJudging by the interviews given by Scott's own attorney, he too, thought the evidence was substantial.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/hand_wave-ani.gif You know what, betcha the appeals court will have the same opinion.

[I'mSun]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/hand_wave-ani.gif You know what, betcha the appeals court will have the same opinion.I'll second that, Miss B!

[I'mSun]

Scott is so obviously guilty that his name has become part of the American culture. It's synonymous with "wife and baby killer". I have heard his name mentioned on several TV series now. I think one of them was a Law & Order episode where a suspect said, "I'm no Scott Peterson!"

Every time another husband or boyfriend kills their spouse/girlfriend, Scott's name is brought up again in the news.

He must be so proud to be so well known. ;)His parents dreams have come true - Scott's name is well known, and his home is on the waterfront! :D

Here is just one example: Prosecutor to test murder statute
Baltimore Sun (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-te.md.law31jul31,0,3272187.story)- United States
Inspired by the killing in 2002 of California resident Laci Peterson, who was in the late stages of pregnancy, Maryland's statute provides for the ...

[enlightenme]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/hand_wave-ani.gifJudging by the interviews given by Scott's own attorney, he too, thought the evidence was substantial.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c384/3232mypic/hand_wave-ani.gif You know what, betcha the appeals court will have the same opinion.


I wonder what the outcry from the SIIs will be when all of Scott's appeals fail? The appellate court judges were:

stupid
paid off by the DA
influenced by the media
afraid of public opinion
part of the conspiracy


etc
etc
etc

?????

[attorneywan2be]

What evidence was presented that convinced you of his innocence?

This is the evidence that convinced me of his innocence:

1-The mineral deposits that were found in the crotch area of her pants

2-Conner's gestational age

3-The location of the bodies and Dr. Cheng's testimony

4-The condition of Laci's uterus

5-The lack of vernix on Conner's body

6-The lack of adipocere on Conner's body

7-Conner's crown to rump measurement vs. the length of the uterus

8-Scott's timeline

9-Scott's actions pointing to innocence

10-Diane's Jackson's report of seeing the van and a safe being removed from the Medina's house on Dec 24th

11-McKenzie being found in the street with his leash attached and the side gate was open...possibly wide open

12-Zero evidence was presented that points to Scott commiting a murder

[deputydi]

This is the evidence that convinced me of his innocence:
<snip>
Everyone of your points has been debunked (now there's a word I haven't seen used in a long time) so often that I'm not going to waste time doing it again.

Now I'd like to know how many of these points are even allowable as issues in the appeal.

[TopGunner]

This is the evidence that convinced me of his innocence:

1-The mineral deposits that were found in the crotch area of her pants

2-Conner's gestational age

3-The location of the bodies and Dr. Cheng's testimony

4-The condition of Laci's uterus

5-The lack of vernix on Conner's body

6-The lack of adipocere on Conner's body

7-Conner's crown to rump measurement vs. the length of the uterus

8-Scott's timeline

9-Scott's actions pointing to innocence

10-Diane's Jackson's report of seeing the van and a safe being removed from the Medina's house on Dec 24th

11-McKenzie being found in the street with his leash attached and the side gate was open...possibly wide open

12-Zero evidence was presented that points to Scott commiting a murder


Aw2B, I truly do appreciate your answering my question. I have to say, if this is all you have, it's weaker than weak. Nothing here, and I do mean nothing, carries even a hint of alarm that the wrong guy is behind bars. I wish, for YOU, that there was something signifigant, some "WOW" listed here, but none of them are even worth debating...IMO, they're that weak or silly.

[attorneywan2be]

Aw2B, I truly do appreciate your answering my question. I have to say, if this is all you have, it's weaker than weak. Nothing here, and I do mean nothing, carries even a hint of alarm that the wrong guy is behind bars. I wish, for YOU, that there was something signifigant, some "WOW" listed here, but none of them are even worth debating...IMO, they're that weak or silly.

I respectfully answered your question....but IMO, you give yourself a lot of credit...your opinion doesn't really matter...the opinion of the court of appeal is what would matter...we shall see..!

[Rachel Cory]

Aw2B, I truly do appreciate your answering my question. I have to say, if this is all you have, it's weaker than weak. Nothing here, and I do mean nothing, carries even a hint of alarm that the wrong guy is behind bars. I wish, for YOU, that there was something signifigant, some "WOW" listed here, but none of them are even worth debating...IMO, they're that weak or silly.
Look at Defense Exhibit 8M:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Dexhibits/8M.htm

Look at the debris found at Pt. Isabel. Enlarge every picture and tell me that that "white rag" does NOT look like a long-sleeved, white, cotton T-shirt, the very thing Scott says Laci was wearing the day she disappeared. Explain the condition of her panties, missing the ENTIRE back panel UNDERNEATH the light tan, cuffed 'pedal pushers' Amy did NOT identify as the khaki slacks she was wearing the night of December 23. Look, TG. I respect you, so please....look.

To Marlene: Thank you. To AW2B: :rose:

[deputydi]

I respectfully answered your question....but IMO, you give yourself a lot of credit...your opinion doesn't really matter...the opinion of the court of appeal is what would matter...we shall see..!
The problem with this logic is that none of the things listed have any chance of being part of the appeal. You're giving reasons you believe he is innocent and that's fine. The subject of this thread is, however, Scott's appeal. What have you found that you believe will succeed as an appeal issue. Forget the wiretaps -- they were not illegal.

[attorneywan2be]

Look at Defense Exhibit 8M:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Dexhibits/8M.htm

Look at the debris found at Pt. Isabel. Enlarge every picture and tell me that that "white rag" does NOT look like a long-sleeved, white, cotton T-shirt, the very thing Scott says Laci was wearing the day she disappeared. Explain the condition of her panties, missing the ENTIRE back panel UNDERNEATH the light tan, cuffed 'pedal pushers' Amy did NOT identify as the khaki slacks she was wearing the night of December 23. Look, TG. I respect you, so please....look.

To Marlene: Thank you. To AW2B: :rose:


Hi Rachel :seeya:

Do you know if MG brought it up when he was cross examining the police?

[attorneywan2be]

The problem with this logic is that none of the things listed have any chance of being part of the appeal. You're giving reasons you believe he is innocent and that's fine. The subject of this thread is, however, Scott's appeal. What have you found that you believe will succeed as an appeal issue. Forget the wiretaps -- they were not illegal.

The question that was addressed to me was about the evidence that convinced me of his innocence..should I have ignored it??

With that said, I think the evidence that was not properly investigated by the defense could be part of the appeal issue "ineffective assistance of counsel" for example, the mineral deposits..

[Rachel Cory]

Hi Rachel :seeya:

Do you know if MG brought it up when he was cross examining the police?

Not that I remember. My main concern is that these articles remain in evidence storage. That white top is of utmost importance, IMO.

[TopGunner]

I respectfully answered your question....but IMO, you give yourself a lot of credit...your opinion doesn't really matter...the opinion of the court of appeal is what would matter...we shall see..!


True - true, my opinion matters no more or less than yours, but I think it's you who gives yourself a lot of credit since you are the one who disagrees with all the cops, lawyers, judges, family of the victim, family of the accused, friends of both, and 99.9% of the world. :tongue:

[enlightenme]

Look at Defense Exhibit 8M:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Dexhibits/8M.htm

Look at the debris found at Pt. Isabel. Enlarge every picture and tell me that that "white rag" does NOT look like a long-sleeved, white, cotton T-shirt, the very thing Scott says Laci was wearing the day she disappeared. Explain the condition of her panties, missing the ENTIRE back panel UNDERNEATH the light tan, cuffed 'pedal pushers' Amy did NOT identify as the khaki slacks she was wearing the night of December 23. Look, TG. I respect you, so please....look.

To Marlene: Thank you. To AW2B: :rose:

I can't tell what it is exactly but it seems to have a light blue band around the top, or the arm, or whatever.

Wasn't this collected? So we should know exactly what it is, right?

The panties probably eroded due to friction and was a different material than the pants. So you think someone cut out the back? For what purpose?

[TopGunner]

Look at Defense Exhibit 8M:

http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/Dexhibits/8M.htm

Look at the debris found at Pt. Isabel. Enlarge every picture and tell me that that "white rag" does NOT look like a long-sleeved, white, cotton T-shirt, the very thing Scott says Laci was wearing the day she disappeared. Explain the condition of her panties, missing the ENTIRE back panel UNDERNEATH the light tan, cuffed 'pedal pushers' Amy did NOT identify as the khaki slacks she was wearing the night of December 23. Look, TG. I respect you, so please....look.

To Marlene: Thank you. To AW2B: :rose:


Thanks Rach, I took a look and I will be completely honest with you. No, I cannot say that that white piece of something is a long sleeved white shirt. However, I can't say it isn't either. I don't believe it's identifiable enough to create cause for appeal, or to wipe out everything else we already know. As for the entire back panel of Laci's panties missing, I have no scientific answer, as I'm not trained in that field, but I will say that I can accept different materials will react in different ways after being sumberged for 4 months in salt water, or dogs chewed it, or marine life ate away at it - way before I can accept that someone "stole" Laci, took her home to change her into the cloths she was wearing the night before without leaving any evidence what-so-ever, or without taking her very expensive jewelry.

[deputydi]

The question that was addressed to me was about the evidence that convinced me of his innocence..should I have ignored it??

With that said, I think the evidence that was not properly investigated by the defense could be part of the appeal issue "ineffective assistance of counsel" for example, the mineral deposits..
I didn't mean my reply to sound like I was chastising you. Sorry if it came across that way. I would like the thread to get back on topic -- I am truly interested in debating the possible appeals issues and somehow that keeps getting derailed.

We all know why you think he is innocent and I think you are sincere in that belief. Scott is a convicted murderer -- that's a fact. The burden is now shifted. He is no longer presumed innocent and he now must prove trial error -- the appeals court is not there to retry this case.

Ineffective assistance is commonly claimed but it is the hardest issue to prove and almost never succeeds. To be successful with this, the appellate attorney must prove that the trial attorney did (or did not do) something so egregious that it affected the outcome. MG made a lot of mistakes and, in the end, his tactics did not work. That's not enough. Did he sleep through the trial? Did he not vigorously defend his client? Was he under the influence of alcohol or drugs? None of these apply.

The boat -- if the appellate attorney can prove that the jury based their verdict solely on a couple of jurors jumping around in the boat, it may be a viable issue. J Delucci properly admonished them afterwards and, they understood the difference between stability on and off the water. Their verdict had nothing to do with what you call an "experiment". Even if the court decides it was an error (which I doubt), Scott has to prove it was a fatal error (which it wasn't).

The wiretape (evesdropping) -- they have to show that undeniably the tapes were improperly introduced and used only to inflame the jury (prejudicial). I don't see it. IMO they definitely had probative value and J Delucci took great pains to exclude those that he felt were inflammatory.

These are the only issues I can think of offhand that have any chance whatsoever of being considered. What have I missed?

[accordn2me]

Not that I remember. My main concern is that these articles remain in evidence storage. That white top is of utmost importance, IMO.What was Evelyn Hernandez wearing when she was last seen? IF that is a white top...it could be from ANYone.

[accordn2me]

The question that was addressed to me was about the evidence that convinced me of his innocence..should I have ignored it??

With that said, I think the evidence that was not properly investigated by the defense could be part of the appeal issue "ineffective assistance of counsel" for example, the mineral deposits..Mineral deposits? You mean the concrete residue from the anchors.

[TopGunner]

The question that was addressed to me was about the evidence that convinced me of his innocence..should I have ignored it??

With that said, I think the evidence that was not properly investigated by the defense could be part of the appeal issue "ineffective assistance of counsel" for example, the mineral deposits..

Aw2B, how do you know that the evidence wasn't properly investigated? I've asked this several times here (not to you directly), and I never get an answer. We are not the least bit privy to what was or was not, let alone WHY things were or weren't investigated.

My contacts in the legal realm tell me we know NOTHING about what went on, none of that is made public.

[enlightenme]

True - true, my opinion matters no more or less than yours, but I think it's you who gives yourself a lot of credit since you are the one who disagrees with all the cops, lawyers, judges, family of the victim, family of the accused, friends of both, and 99.9% of the world. :tongue:


Not only that, she disagrees with the findings of the experts. The ME, the forensic pathologist, etc.

It's amazing how the internet has produced self educated experts in every field without the benefit of formal training and experience, isn't it?

JMO

[Rachel Cory]

Wasn't this collected? So we should know exactly what it is, right?

The panties probably eroded due to friction and was a different material than the pants. So you think someone cut out the back? For what purpose?
Yes, we should know exactly what this is. And I do believe these items were collected. As for her panties, they were women's Jockey, Size 7, cotton. I don't believe cotton dissolves in water, or none of us would purchase anything made of it. And, yes, I believe they were deliberately cut, gone from the waistband to the legbands, according to testimony. I don't want to speculate on the why.

[attorneywan2be]

I can't tell what it is exactly but it seems to have a light blue band around the top, or the arm, or whatever.

Wasn't this collected? So we should know exactly what it is, right?

The panties probably eroded due to friction and was a different material than the pants. So you think someone cut out the back? For what purpose?

Assuming the body was in the bay, it would have been in prone position, why would the back of her underwear be missing? I mean the pants would have been covering/protecting that part...wouldn't they?

My theory is that her abductors left her to urinate in her pants for weeks..between urination the crotch area of her pants would go thru alternate exposure to air then to urine forming those mineral deposits they found on her pants....the accumulation of acid from urine could have caused the deterioration of the back of her underwear...there was no mineral deposits on her panties because they were not exposed to air..they didn't have the chance to dry out between urination...

[attorneywan2be]

Aw2B, how do you know that the evidence wasn't properly investigated? I've asked this several times here (not to you directly), and I never get an answer. We are not the least bit privy to what was or was not, let alone WHY things were or weren't investigated.

My contacts in the legal realm tell me we know NOTHING about what went on, none of that is made public.

For example, the mineral deposits are evidence in this case..we would have known about it if they were tested..

I predict that "ineffective assistance of counsel" will be an appeal issue..

[Rachel Cory]

For example, the mineral deposits are evidence in this case..we would have known about it if they were tested..

I predict that "ineffective assistance of counsel" will be an appeal issue..
Indeed. :)

[accordn2me]

For example, the mineral deposits are evidence in this case..we would have known about it if they were tested..

I predict that "ineffective assistance of counsel" will be an appeal issue..I predict the "mineral deposits" will be found to be from the same concrete Scott used to make the anchors.

[I'mSun]

For example, the mineral deposits are evidence in this case..we would have known about it if they were tested..

I predict that "ineffective assistance of counsel" will be an appeal issue..There have been attorneys who have fallen asleep during murder trials that were not ruled incompetent, so don't count on IAC to be an issue. Mark Geragos did the best he could with what he had, imo. He tried every trick in the book - just none of them worked. JMO...

[attorneywan2be]

I predict the "mineral deposits" will be found to be from the same concrete Scott used to make the anchors.


There was no evidence presented that could even remotely indicate that the mineral deposits were indeed concrete...so what led you to believe in this theory?

[deputydi]

There have been attorneys who have fallen asleep during murder trials that were not ruled incompetent, so don't count on IAC to be an issue. Mark Geragos did the best he could with what he had, imo. He tried every trick in the book - just none of them worked. JMO...
Yep -- and worse.
NOT INCOMPETENT ENOUGH TO REQUIRE REVERSAL:

“Although defense counsel slept during portions of the trial, counsel provided defendant meaningful representation.”

“Proof of a defense counsel’s use of narcotics during trial does not amount to a per se violation of constitutional right to effective counsel.”

“Murder defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel, though counsel was alcoholic.”

“Counsel’s … seeming indifference to defendant’s attire . . . through defendant was wearing same sweatshirt and footwear in court that he wore on the day of crime, did not constitute ineffective assistance.”
http://www.caught.net/caught/ineffec.htm

[accordn2me]

Rachel Cory said:



What are you talking about? I mean that with the utmost respect. And since you bring up the LORD, I ask it in love.

Jesus tells us that we should act as if we are all chained with the prisoner. However, He was speaking of people imprinsoned by persecution, not prosection. Jesus speaks of being obedient to authority, because His Father allowed these people in authority to rise to their positions.

Enough Christian doctrine. :) Whether any of us have a fake diploma or not.

RC, the excuses you make for SP have gone so many times around the block...they don't mean a thing. Claim it and name it doesn't work in this case. Do you even read the posts here that aren't directed at you? Do you have any understanding where we G's are coming from? No, not IMO.

Its not about s*x. Its about the fact that he wanted her gone and he planned it with malice aforethought and he carried it out with malice. HE WANTED HER GONE.

Ugh, if you want to think he was convicted for a fling and refuse to connect the HUGE dots... more's the pity. John Couey didn't formulate premeditation as much as SP, IMO. Would you defend him?It's not about what?

[accordn2me]

There was no evidence presented that could even remotely indicate that the mineral deposits were indeed concrete...so what led you to believe in this theory?Wearing a Halo, IIRC, was the first to present this theory, at least on this board.

What else could they be?

[attorneywan2be]

Indeed. :)

Exactly...;)

[TopGunner]

I predict the "mineral deposits" will be found to be from the same concrete Scott used to make the anchors.



Indeed ! :beer:

[I'mSun]

Indeed ! :beer:Exactly! :beer:

[attorneywan2be]

Wearing a Halo, IIRC, was the first to present this theory, at least on this board.

What else could they be?


Well..I think the theory about the mineral deposits being concrete doesn't make any sense whatsoever..the ME would have been able to tell if they were concrete...

I have already explained my theory..I'm sure you will disagree...;)

[TopGunner]

I didn't mean my reply to sound like I was chastising you. Sorry if it came across that way. I would like the thread to get back on topic -- I am truly interested in debating the possible appeals issues and somehow that keeps getting derailed.

We all know why you think he is innocent and I think you are sincere in that belief. Scott is a convicted murderer -- that's a fact. The burden is now shifted. He is no longer presumed innocent and he now must prove trial error -- the appeals court is not there to retry this case.

Ineffective assistance is commonly claimed but it is the hardest issue to prove and almost never succeeds. To be successful with this, the appellate attorney must prove that the trial attorney did (or did not do) something so egregious that it affected the outcome. MG made a lot of mistakes and, in the end, his tactics did not work. That's not enough. Did he sleep through the trial? Did he not vigorously defend his client? Was he under the influence of alcohol or drugs? None of these apply.

The boat -- if the appellate attorney can prove that the jury based their verdict solely on a couple of jurors jumping around in the boat, it may be a viable issue. J Delucci properly admonished them afterwards and, they understood the difference between stability on and off the water. Their verdict had nothing to do with what you call an "experiment". Even if the court decides it was an error (which I doubt), Scott has to prove it was a fatal error (which it wasn't).

The wiretape (evesdropping) -- they have to show that undeniably the tapes were improperly introduced and used only to inflame the jury (prejudicial). I don't see it. IMO they definitely had probative value and J Delucci took great pains to exclude those that he felt were inflammatory.

These are the only issues I can think of offhand that have any chance whatsoever of being considered. What have I missed?

Hey DD - Kudos to you for logically spelling this out, and you are correct. To assume a convicted 1st degree murderer has a shot at freedom because of supposed mineral deposits - 'cause don't forget, the tank/tub Laci was "held" in would also have to appear as would other evidence to back up this new spin. It'll never be heard.

[I'mSun]

...your opinion doesn't really matter...the opinion of the court of appeal is what would matter...we shall see..!We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -Daniel Patrick Moynihan

[accordn2me]

Well..I think the theory about the mineral deposits being concrete doesn't make any sense whatsoever..the ME would have been able to tell if they were concrete...

I have already explained my theory..I'm sure you will disagree...;)Your theory stems from the ME making a passing statement about his theory of how the deposits might have formed. He explicitly stated this was not his area of expertise. Read: they might not have formed that way.

And if your theory is still that these deposits are from Laci urinating on herself repeatedly over the course of several months....you're right...I will disagree. :cool:

[Otter]

It's not about what?

If you can't decipher s*x, no wonder you can't understand the evidence. :rolleyes:

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

Great sig! I've always meant to compliment you on it! So ironic that you use it. :)

[enlightenme]

Yes, we should know exactly what this is. And I do believe these items were collected. As for her panties, they were women's Jockey, Size 7, cotton. I don't believe cotton dissolves in water, or none of us would purchase anything made of it. And, yes, I believe they were deliberately cut, gone from the waistband to the legbands, according to testimony. I don't want to speculate on the why.

The ME didn't seem to think it was unusual. Was the fabric frayed or did it look like it was cut? Salt water and micro organisms in the bay are a lot different than water in your washing machine.

I wonder if the jury got to see photos of the clothes?

Common sense tells me that her panties were NOT cut out in the back by the "real killers" but rather was an end product of being in the bay for almost 4 months.

The jury got to see all the photos that WE did not.

[deputydi]

Hey DD 0- Kudos to you for logically spelling this out, and you are correct. To assume a convicted 1st degree murderer has a shot at freedom because of supposed mineral deposits - 'cause don't forget, the tank/tub Laci was "held" in would also have to appear as would other evidence to back up this new spin. It'll never be heard.
Thanks. I'm still waiting for AW2B to respond. The NGs seem to want to retry the case here, but they are still grasping at straws. Apparently, they refuse to understand that none of their "theories" are going to get Scott a new trial. All of this garbage about mineral deposits, gestational age, the size of Laci's uterus, etc are completely meaningless. The testimony is what it is and the jury rendered a verdict. It's over. Scott is a convicted murderer and none of this other stuff matters any more -- at least not at this stage of the game.

[Miss Bootsie]

*Snipped

I can't tell what it is exactly but it seems to have a light blue band around the top, or the arm, or whatever.

*Snipped


Looks like an extra large pair of mens underwear to me.

[TopGunner]

If you can't decipher s*x, no wonder you can't understand the evidence. :rolleyes:

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

Great sig! I've always meant to compliment you on it! So ironic that you use it. :)


S O X ? :tongue:

[Otter]

S O X ? :tongue:

Yay!!! Go White Sox!!!! Don't want them those Boston baseballers posting in these here parts! :hat:

[TopGunner]

Yay!!! Go White Sox!!!! Don't want them those Boston baseballers posting in these here parts! :hat:

TG <--------------- Boston Baseballer Fan :flamemad: :no:

[Otter]

TG <--------------- Boston Baseballer Fan :flamemad: :no:


:eek: I was a northsider. Go Cubs! If they ever win, its a sign of the endtimes.

*otterrunsaway*

:D

[Lavindar]

What was Evelyn Hernandez wearing when she was last seen? IF that is a white top...it could be from ANYone.

Does anyone else think it odd that Laci would wear a black bra with a white top? I am not terribly fashion conscious, but even I know that.

[TopGunner]

:eek: I was a northsider. Go Cubs! If they ever win, its a sign of the endtimes.

*otterrunsaway*

:D

LOL!!!

Otter <----------------------- :chicken: :chicken: :chicken:

[Miss Bootsie]

Well..I think the theory about the mineral deposits being concrete doesn't make any sense whatsoever..the ME would have been able to tell if they were concrete...

I have already explained my theory..I'm sure you will disagree...;)



:D You said it. A forensic pathologist would also be able to tell if the deposits had been kidney stones.

[Miss Bootsie]

The ME didn't seem to think it was unusual. Was the fabric frayed or did it look like it was cut? Salt water and micro organisms in the bay are a lot different than water in your washing machine.

I wonder if the jury got to see photos of the clothes?

Common sense tells me that her panties were NOT cut out in the back by the "real killers" but rather was an end product of being in the bay for almost 4 months.

The jury got to see all the photos that WE did not.

Common sense tells me that removing the whole panty would be a lot easier than taking the time to cut a section away from the elastic.

Do we soak our 100% cotton garments in silty salt water for four months at a time?:biggrin:

[Miss Bootsie]

Looks like an extra large pair of mens underwear to me.

Does anyone know if one of the burglars wore extra large fruit of the looms?:biggrin:

[attorneywan2be]

:D You said it. A forensic pathologist would also be able to tell if the deposits had been kidney stones.

To begin with, I never said they were kidney stones...IMO, the mineral deposits would form due to alternate wetting and drying cycles over a period of time..my theory is based on the possibility that urine was causing the wetting of the crotch area of her pants...

Would someone please elaborate on this: why do you think the mineral deposits were only found in the crotch area of Laci's pants..while none was found on her bra..on her panties..and on the rest of her pants?

[attorneywan2be]

Thanks. I'm still waiting for AW2B to respond. The NGs seem to want to retry the case here, but they are still grasping at straws. Apparently, they refuse to understand that none of their "theories" are going to get Scott a new trial. All of this garbage about mineral deposits, gestational age, the size of Laci's uterus, etc are completely meaningless. The testimony is what it is and the jury rendered a verdict. It's over. Scott is a convicted murderer and none of this other stuff matters any more -- at least not at this stage of the game.

And you expect a reply!?

[adnoid]

..IMO, the mineral deposits would form due to alternate wetting and drying cycles over a period of time..my theory is based on the possibility that urine was causing the wetting of the crotch area of her pants...

Why?

I've seen you post this many times, but I've never seen any discussion of the mechanism.

The average density of the water in the San Francisco Bay is 1.022 gm/ml (less than the average oceanic density of 1.026 gm/ml due to the fresh water inflow), mostly due to dissolved inorganic material such as salt and minerals. The middle of the range of density for human urine is 1.019 gm/ml, mainly due to dissolved organic material, mainly the compound urea, along with some dissolved salts. Therefore, it is much more likely that evaporation of bay water would form deposits than it is that evaporation of urine would. The components of excreted urine do not include a high level of salt and minerals - but sea water does.

It's no good to say "I think it happened but I can't explain how". You can do it, but it's the same as saying "I think space aliens did it but I can't explain how". It is a logical fallacy to assert that a proposition is true because nobody has bothered to disprove it.

[frydaddy]

Two questions for anyone who can answer.

Does anyone know where Shawn Sibley worked when she and Scott attended the conference?

Does anyone have info on all of Amber's various phone numbers?

TIA :seeya:

[Miss Bootsie]

To begin with, I never said they were kidney stones...IMO, the mineral deposits would form due to alternate wetting and drying cycles over a period of time..my theory is based on the possibility that urine was causing the wetting of the crotch area of her pants...

Would someone please elaborate on this: why do you think the mineral deposits were only found in the crotch area of Laci's pants..while none was found on her bra..on her panties..and on the rest of her pants?



First, I believe you are misinterpreting Dr. Peterson's testimony.

I say this, because your theory involves a process where the deposits were formed by the continous action of wet urine that went through a drying process.
In other words, you are saying the urine went through a physical change after continous drying, therefore forming the hard deposits.

Note that, Dr. Peterson didn't state that the mineral deposits may have been formed by a wetting and drying process.
He merely said the mineral deposits could have been laid down by the process.

[deputydi]

And you expect a reply!?
I'm waiting for a reply regarding the APPEAL ISSUES. Isn't that the title of the thread you started but continue to derail at every opportunity?

This is the post I'm waiting for an answer to:
http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8931775&postcount=4184

[attorneywan2be]

Why?

I've seen you post this many times, but I've never seen any discussion of the mechanism.

The average density of the water in the San Francisco Bay is 1.022 gm/ml (less than the average oceanic density of 1.026 gm/ml due to the fresh water inflow), mostly due to dissolved inorganic material such as salt and minerals. The middle of the range of density for human urine is 1.019 gm/ml, mainly due to dissolved organic material, mainly the compound urea, along with some dissolved salts. Therefore, it is much more likely that evaporation of bay water would form deposits than it is that evaporation of urine would. The components of excreted urine do not include a high level of salt and minerals - but sea water does.

It's no good to say "I think it happened but I can't explain how". You can do it, but it's the same as saying "I think space aliens did it but I can't explain how". It is a logical fallacy to assert that a proposition is true because nobody has bothered to disprove it.


I did explain it in my previous posts..IMO, it's the most logical theory that would explain the presence of mineral deposits in that area of her pants---> "the crotch area" ..do you think that bay water would evaporate if her body was at the bottom of the bay..how could that be possible? in addition, IMO, there are couple of problems with the ME's theory that the body was in the bay supposedly being alternately exposed and submerged forming those deposits...

1- The crotch area of her pants would have been wet at all times even if her body floated, since she would have been in prone position

2-According to the prosecution theory, she was weighted down, when the storm hit, she broke free and Conner exited from her womb...then they both floated to shore..so she was supposedly at the bottom of the bay until the storm..no chance for her pants to be exposed to air..

3-If salt and minerals from the bay water were deposited on her body..then why were they only found in the crotch area of her pants? why not on her bra? why not on the rest of her pants?


Brian Peterson: Sure. My thinking is, it may have had to do with the body being alternately exposed and submerged, and maybe as water and salts were deposited and then dried, that material could be laid down. Again, I would never claim to be a geologist. But that was my thinking at table side at the time when we talked about that.
Mark Geragos: Okay. When you say that it was submerged, meaning at some point underwater, at some point out of the water, or at least not exposed to water, correct?
Brian Peterson: Or maybe on the surface of the water.

[attorneywan2be]

First, I believe you are misinterpreting Dr. Peterson's testimony.

I say this, because your theory involves a process where the deposits were formed by the continous action of wet urine that went through a drying process.
In other words, you are saying the urine went through a physical change after continous drying, therefore forming the hard deposits.

Note that, Dr. Peterson didn't state that the mineral deposits may have been formed by a wetting and drying process.
He merely said the mineral deposits could have been laid down by the process.

Nope, I think you are misinterpreting Dr. Peterson's testimony...

Brian Peterson: Sure. My thinking is, it may have had to do with the body being alternately exposed and submerged, and maybe as water and salts were deposited and then dried, that material could be laid down. Again, I would never claim to be a geologist. But that was my thinking at table side at the time when we talked about that.
Mark Geragos: Okay. When you say that it was submerged, meaning at some point underwater, at some point out of the water, or at least not exposed to water, correct?
Brian Peterson: Or maybe on the surface of the water.

[deputydi]

I did explain it in my previous posts..IMO, it's the most logical theory that would explain the presence of mineral deposits in that area of her pants---> "the crotch area" ..do you think that bay water would evaporate if her body was at the bottom of the bay..how could that be possible? in addition, IMO, there are couple of problems with the ME's theory that the body was in the bay supposedly being alternately exposed and submerged forming those deposits...

1- The crotch area of her pants would have been wet at all times even if her body floated, since she would have been in prone position

2-According to the prosecution theory, she was weighted down, when the storm hit, she broke free and Conner exited from her womb...then they both floated to shore..so she was supposedly at the bottom of the bay until the storm..no chance for her pants to be exposed to air..

3-If salt and minerals from the bay water were deposited on her body..then why were they only found in the crotch area of her pants? why not on her bra? why not on the rest of her pants?


Brian Peterson: Sure. My thinking is, it may have had to do with the body being alternately exposed and submerged, and maybe as water and salts were deposited and then dried, that material could be laid down. Again, I would never claim to be a geologist. But that was my thinking at table side at the time when we talked about that.
Mark Geragos: Okay. When you say that it was submerged, meaning at some point underwater, at some point out of the water, or at least not exposed to water, correct?
Brian Peterson: Or maybe on the surface of the water.
How does this fit with your bathtub theory?

[adnoid]

I did explain it in my previous posts..IMO, it's the most logical theory that would explain the presence of mineral deposits in that area of her pants---> "the crotch area" ...

You are assuming that urine has a high mineral content which would be left behind when the water evaporated. The medical information says urine does not have a high mineral content. So where are the minerals coming from? If urine does not have significant dissolved minerals the mineral deposits cannot come from urine, right?

[attorneywan2be]

How does this fit with your bathtub theory?

Both theories do not conflict and they are not related..my theory regarding the mineral deposits is that they were formed due to repeated urination when she was still alive...

[attorneywan2be]

I'm waiting for a reply regarding the APPEAL ISSUES. Isn't that the title of the thread you started but continue to derail at every opportunity?

This is the post I'm waiting for an answer to:
http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8931775&postcount=4184

You asked what have you missed..well about couple of weeks ago, I posted a list of potential appeal issues..here it is:

IMO:

1-Insufficient evidence to support the verdict..there was Zero evidence as to the murder..no cause of death..no place of death..no time of death..no motive was ever identified..if the appellate court would reverse based on that, Double Jeopary would attach.. the jury in this case had to have speculated big time..

2-The jury experimenting with the boat..Beratlis stated on Greta's show on Dec 14, 2004 that the jury had questions in their minds about the stability of the boat and the buoyancy..he got into the boat and rocked it to determine the stability of the boat..thus creating evidence not presented in court.

3-The removal of juror #5 Justin Falconer..

4-The removal of juror # 5 Gregory Jackson (during deliberations), Jackson told the judge that he felt he was threatened by other jurors and that there were comments made to him that made him think his safety was at issue....Guinasso stated on ABC that in his opinion, had Jackson stayed on the jury it would have been a hung jury.. he also stated that before Jackson was removed he was leading the jury in the defense direction..so IMO, it is a coerced verdict..they threatened the only juror that was holding out for acquital..

5-Richelle Nice, juror #7 stated on court TV that they didn't deliberate anew after the judge replaced a juror during deliberations..it is a violation of jury instructions..

6-Mary Mylett, juror # 10 stated to Modesto Bee that she was dreaming during the trial each night about being part of the Rochas..and that those dreams helped her heal from the nightmares of the day..that indicates extreme bias (which she should have mentioned to the judge) and also indicates she made up her mind of guilt as early as July..otherwise, why would she think of her days in court as nightmares.. she also stated that for 6 months she watched Sharon Rocha from the jury box..according to the jury instructions she was not supposed to be influenced by anything other than the evidence presented in court..so why was she watching her for 6 months?

7-Belemissieri stated on Greta's show on Dec 14, 2004 that he noticed that Scott didn't show any remorse during the guilt phase..and that was a point of discussion in the deliberations..this is a violation of the right to remain silent..in addition, this indicates that he expected to see remorse during the guilt phase..that would only indicate one thing..he made up his mind about guilt during the trial and before deliberations..

8-Delucchi erred by allowing the prosecution to demonstrate to the jury using a living person, Kim Fulbright, that it was possible to place Laci's body in the toolbox and the boat..this demonstration obviously didn't replicate the prosecution's theory..Rigor Mortis and the 5 imaginary anchors were not taken into account..this demonstration is misleading to say the least and is highly prejudicial..

9-Delucchi erred by disallowing the defense's boat experiment citing that the experiment didn't replicate the event in question..this is the exact point he disregarded when he allowed the prosecution's demonstration..

10-Delucchi erred by allowing Amber's tapes..they are highly prejudicial with zero evidentiary value..

11-Delucchi erred by allowing the dog evidence..this is unproven unreliable evidence that is highly prejudicial..

12- Ineffective assistance of counsel..Geragos made a lot of serious mistakes

13-Pre-trial negative publicity and media circus

[attorneywan2be]

You are assuming that urine has a high mineral content which would be left behind when the water evaporated. The medical information says urine does not have a high mineral content. So where are the minerals coming from? If urine does not have significant dissolved minerals the mineral deposits cannot come from urine, right?

How high do you think the mineral content in the urine had to be in order for those deposits to form? please post a link...

[USAHICK]

How high do you think the mineral content in the urine had to be in order for those deposits to form? please post a link...

How exactly is this an appeal issue?

[Miss Bootsie]

To begin with, I never said they were kidney stones...IMO, the mineral deposits would form due to alternate wetting and drying cycles over a period of time..my theory is based on the possibility that urine was causing the wetting of the crotch area of her pants...

Would someone please elaborate on this: why do you think the mineral deposits were only found in the crotch area of Laci's pants..while none was found on her bra..on her panties..and on the rest of her pants?

Will you explain how the stones you reference in your theory differ in composition with stones that form in the kidney?

[caphill]

There were many judicial errors, IMO, that could be reversible errors in the Peterson case. The most notable, IMO, are the jury issues.

It is a matter of record that Geragos argued for a sequestered jury. With the amount pre trial mass media coverage, IMO, the Judge not sequestering this jury was a serious error. Some of the jurors comments after the verdict confirms that there was public pressure put on them out side the court house(Remember, when the Coach said people walked up to him on the street and told him to "fry" Peterson or something to that effect.)

The dismissal of jurors during deliberation is always carefully looked at and can and has been a reversal issue. In this case, I believe Dr. Gregory Jackson will return to share with defense what really happened in that jury room that caused him to approach the Judge with his story of the hostility and pressure to come to an "expected" verdict . He also told the Judge that he and Steve Cardosi spoke of the case outside the jury room. Wonder why the judge didn't dismiss Cardosi? Cardosi becomes the jury foreman the next day and a verdict is reached post haste.

The seven jurors(Cardosi is not one of them) writes a book with some very revealing info as how they arrived at a verdict.

Contrary to what some posters here are saying, the book reveals the jurors put great weight to the Frey tapes. From the book "They pinpointed Frey's secretly taped phone conversations with her lover, as a turning point". This is followed with this statment "Jurors found the tapes even more valuable in the death sentence deliberations........

Since Steve Cardosi seems to have disappeared from the media circuit and was no part of that book the jurors wrote, I speculate, he is at least smart enough to understand all the comments and yak yak yaking of the jurors is just more fodder for a possible juror misconduct claim.

This book was shocking in its revealations of how emotionally and mentally frail some of the jurors were during and after the trial. Never heard of that being an appellate issue but interesting in the least.

In concert with a number of judicial errors, the jury dismissals et al, IMO, will be a sure thing for a reversal. A retrial will be the time to bring forth any new evidence, if any, and the time to challenge the veracity of the evidence presented. A retrial will be a much different animal, IMO. I would also venture the Amber tapes will not be a part of the evidence.

[adnoid]

How high do you think the mineral content in the urine had to be in order for those deposits to form? please post a link...

No. It's your theory, not mine. YOU post some backup for YOUR contention that it can happen. You are the only one arguing that this occurred, you need to back it up if you want it taken seriously. There has been no evidence presented so far that backs up your theory, so it's currently unproven.

[Lavindar]

Does anyone know if one of the burglars wore extra large fruit of the looms?:biggrin:
Considering that Todd and Pearce were tall and thin and the three men that DJ saw were short and dark skinned, it would logically seem that the underwear would not fit any of them. Size 7 jockey would not be appropriate for a pregnant woman to wear anyway - too small. That's providing that that information is correct.

[Lavindar]

There were many judicial errors, IMO, that could be reversible errors in the Peterson case. The most notable, IMO, are the jury issues.

It is a matter of record that Geragos argued for a sequestered jury. With the amount pre trial mass media coverage, IMO, the Judge not sequestering this jury was a serious error. Some of the jurors comments after the verdict confirms that there was public pressure put on them out side the court house(Remember, when the Coach said people walked up to him on the street and told him to "fry" Peterson or something to that effect.) It was stated in the book of of the jurors how careful they were to avoid any news of the case. The media circus had occurred long before the trial and sequestering the jury wouldn't guarantee anything in this case.

The dismissal of jurors during deliberation is always carefully looked at and can and has been a reversal issue. In this case, I believe Dr. Gregory Jackson will return to share with defense what really happened in that jury room that caused him to approach the Judge with his story of the hostility and pressure to come to an "expected" verdict . He also told the Judge that he and Steve Cardosi spoke of the case outside the jury room. Wonder why the judge didn't dismiss Cardosi? Cardosi becomes the jury foreman the next day and a verdict is reached post haste. If you read the book, Cardosi became the foreman BEFORE Jackson was removed. Jackson deliberately broke the rules to get off the jury. Maybe because Cardosi didn't reply to Jackson's yakking. The information on this removal has not been released to the public and I'm sure that Delucchi was very careful in dismissing anyone. Your comment shows a lack of trust towards the judicial system, and a lack of respect for a judge who's been doing this for longer than most of us have been alive.

The seven jurors(Cardosi is not one of them) writes a book with some very revealing info as how they arrived at a verdict. This is not an issue for appeal. If you know this, then you know how CAREFUL they were to follow the law and the judge's instructions.[/quote]

Contrary to what some posters here are saying, the book reveals the jurors put great weight to the Frey tapes. From the book "They pinpointed Frey's secretly taped phone conversations with her lover, as a turning point". This is followed with this statment "Jurors found the tapes even more valuable in the death sentence deliberations........ Yes, a turning point as they gave huge insight into the mind of the killer and his callous lies and his attitude towards his missing wife.

Since Steve Cardosi seems to have disappeared from the media circuit and was no part of that book the jurors wrote, I speculate, he is at least smart enough to understand all the comments and yak yak yaking of the jurors is just more fodder for a possible juror misconduct claim.
I believe Garegos already tried that with the "juror in the bar" story that, again, took time away from the court to be investigated. Maybe Cardosi didn't want to share his "threatening" phone calls with the world.
This book was shocking in its revealations of how emotionally and mentally frail some of the jurors were during and after the trial. Never heard of that being an appellate issue but interesting in the least.[/quote]
I believe Garegos already tried that with the "juror in the bar" story that, again, took time away from the court to be investigated. Maybe Cardosi didn't want to share his "threatening" phone calls with the world. I assume that the emotionally and mentally frail means Nice. She didn't have her breakdown until a year AFTER the fact. I think the fact that these people were upset at what they had to do shows how MUCH they believed in their verdict. Oh, and what would you do if someone threatened to kill you and members of your family? I would hope you would be upset.
`
In concert with a number of judicial errors, the jury dismissals et al, IMO, will be a sure thing for a reversal. A retrial will be the time to bring forth any new evidence, if any, and the time to challenge the veracity of the evidence presented. A retrial will be a much different animal, IMO. I would also venture the Amber tapes will not be a part of the evidence.

I, of course, disagree with you. I think, should a miracle happen and the 9th circuit does demand a new trial, that most people will be totally amazed at the NEW EVIDENCE that the prosecution will have also. And you can bet your bottom dollar that you won't see Garegos. You will probably get the Peterson's first choice who has never defended a case in CA. More show over truth imo

[attorneywan2be]

There were many judicial errors, IMO, that could be reversible errors in the Peterson case. The most notable, IMO, are the jury issues.

It is a matter of record that Geragos argued for a sequestered jury. With the amount pre trial mass media coverage, IMO, the Judge not sequestering this jury was a serious error. Some of the jurors comments after the verdict confirms that there was public pressure put on them out side the court house(Remember, when the Coach said people walked up to him on the street and told him to "fry" Peterson or something to that effect.)

The dismissal of jurors during deliberation is always carefully looked at and can and has been a reversal issue. In this case, I believe Dr. Gregory Jackson will return to share with defense what really happened in that jury room that caused him to approach the Judge with his story of the hostility and pressure to come to an "expected" verdict . He also told the Judge that he and Steve Cardosi spoke of the case outside the jury room. Wonder why the judge didn't dismiss Cardosi? Cardosi becomes the jury foreman the next day and a verdict is reached post haste.

The seven jurors(Cardosi is not one of them) writes a book with some very revealing info as how they arrived at a verdict.

Contrary to what some posters here are saying, the book reveals the jurors put great weight to the Frey tapes. From the book "They pinpointed Frey's secretly taped phone conversations with her lover, as a turning point". This is followed with this statment "Jurors found the tapes even more valuable in the death sentence deliberations........

Since Steve Cardosi seems to have disappeared from the media circuit and was no part of that book the jurors wrote, I speculate, he is at least smart enough to understand all the comments and yak yak yaking of the jurors is just more fodder for a possible juror misconduct claim.

This book was shocking in its revealations of how emotionally and mentally frail some of the jurors were during and after the trial. Never heard of that being an appellate issue but interesting in the least.

In concert with a number of judicial errors, the jury dismissals et al, IMO, will be a sure thing for a reversal. A retrial will be the time to bring forth any new evidence, if any, and the time to challenge the veracity of the evidence presented. A retrial will be a much different animal, IMO. I would also venture the Amber tapes will not be a part of the evidence.


Excellent post..I have zero doubt that the dismissal of Dr. Jackson will be one of powerful appeal issues that will overwhelm the court of appeal...

[USAHICK]

Excellent post..I have zero doubt that the dismissal of Dr. Jackson will be one of powerful appeal issues that will overwhelm the court of appeal...

Yeah, sure, especially since Jackson ASKED to be let go.

[deputydi]

There were many judicial errors, IMO, that could be reversible errors in the Peterson case. The most notable, IMO, are the jury issues.
<snip>
Thank you and thanks to AW2B for your responses. Can we take them one at a time?

The jury issues will probably be used in the habeas appeal, but not the first one. The first appeal will deal only with trial errors. So let's start with some of J Delucci's rulings that some are questioning:

The insufficient evidence claim listed by AW2B puzzles me. Just because it didn't convince her is no reason to claim there was "zero" evidence. There was certainly enough to convince 99% of the population which includes the 12 people that matter most. In HER opinion it was insuffient but that's not a legal appeal issue.

Let's move on to the boat "experiment". That, I am pretty sure, will be used. The problem IMO is that while it may be deemed an error -- I think it will be found harmless. The jury did not base their verdict solely on this action. The judge properly admonished them and explained that they can not base their opinion as to the stability of the boat on this and this alone. He made it clear to everyone that there are differences in the stability of a boat on and out of the water. I think the jury was smart enough to figure this out on their own, but he put the admonishment on the record.

[attorneywan2be]

No. It's your theory, not mine. YOU post some backup for YOUR contention that it can happen. You are the only one arguing that this occurred, you need to back it up if you want it taken seriously. There has been no evidence presented so far that backs up your theory, so it's currently unproven.

You might want to read this..however, I repeat that my theory is not based on Laci passing kidney stones..but this site talks about the mineral content in urine and the causes that would increase the level of mineral content in the urine....keep in mind that Laci did suffer from urinary tract infection during her pregnancy...:

The crystals that lead to kidney stones are likely to form when your urine contains a high concentration of certain substances — especially calcium, oxalate, uric acid and rarely, cystine — or low levels of substances that help prevent crystal formation, such as citrate and magnesium. Crystals also may form if your urine becomes too concentrated or is too acidic or too alkaline.

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

A number of factors can cause changes in your urine, including the effects of heredity, diet, drugs, climate, lifestyle factors and certain medical conditions. Each of the four main types of kidney stones has a different cause:

Calcium stones. Roughly four out of five kidney stones are calcium stones. These stones are usually a combination of calcium and oxalate. Oxalate is a compound that occurs naturally in some fruits and vegetables. A number of factors can cause high concentrations of these substances in urine. Excess calcium, for instance, may result from ingesting large amounts of vitamin D, from treatment with thyroid hormones or certain diuretics, and from some cancers and kidney conditions. You may also have high levels of calcium if your parathyroid glands, which regulate calcium metabolism, are overactive (hyperparathyroidism). On the other hand, certain genetic factors, intestinal bypass surgery and a diet high in oxalic acid may cause excess amounts of oxalate in your body.

Struvite stones. Found more often in women than in men, struvite stones are almost always the result of chronic urinary tract infections caused by bacteria that produce specific enzymes. These enzymes increase the amount of ammonia in the urine, which is incorporated in the crystals of struvite stones. These stones are often large, may have a characteristic stag's-horn shape and can seriously damage your kidneys.

Uric acid stones. These stones are formed of uric acid, a byproduct of protein metabolism. You're more likely to develop uric acid stones if you've undergone chemotherapy, you eat a high-protein diet or you have certain genetic factors that predispose you to the condition.

Cystine stones. These stones represent only a small percentage of kidney stones. They form in people with a hereditary disorder that causes the kidneys to excrete excessive amounts of certain amino acids (cystinuria).

Risk factors

These factors may increase your risk of developing kidney stones:

Lack of fluids. If you don't drink enough fluids, especially water, your urine is likely to have higher concentrations of substances that can form stones. That's also why you're more likely to form kidney stones if you live in a hot, dry climate, work in a hot environment, such as a commercial kitchen, or exercise strenuously without replacing lost fluids.

Family or personal history. If someone in your family has kidney stones, you're more likely to develop stones too. And if you've already had one or more kidney stones, you're at increased risk of developing another.

Age, sex and race. Most people who develop kidney stones are between 20 and 70 years of age. Men are more likely to develop kidney stones than are women. In addition, white Americans are at higher risk of kidney stones than are black Americans.

Certain diseases. Rare, inherited diseases such as renal tubular acidosis and cystinuria can increase your risk of kidney stones. So can more common disorders such as gout, chronic urinary tract infections and hyperparathyroidism.

Certain medications. Medications can have variable effects on stone formation. For example, diuretics may increase your risk of developing kidney stones in some situations and decrease it in others. If you're at risk, check with your doctor or pharmacist about any medications you take.

Diet. A diet that's high in protein (meat, chicken and fish) and sodium (salt), and low in whole grains and calcium may increase your risk of some types of kidney stones.

Limited activity. You're more prone to develop kidney stones if you're bedridden or very sedentary for a long period of time. That's because limited activity can cause your bones to release more calcium.

[Miss Bootsie]

Excellent post..I have zero doubt that the dismissal of Dr. Jackson will be one of powerful appeal issues that will overwhelm the court of appeal...

:biggrin: I seriously doubt any appeal issue will overwhelm the Appellate Judges.


Do you remember this comment you made to a poster recently?
Originally posted by attorneywan2be: I respectfully answered your question....but IMO, you give yourself a lot of credit...your opinion doesn't really matter...the opinion of the court of appeal is what would matter...we shall see..!

You seem to have one standard for yourself and quite a different standard for the OP.

[enlightenme]

Thank you and thanks to AW2B for your responses. Can we take them one at a time?

The jury issues will probably be used in the habeas appeal, but not the first one. The first appeal will deal only with trial errors. So let's start with some of J Delucci's rulings that some are questioning:

The insufficient evidence claim listed by AW2B puzzles me. Just because it didn't convince her is no reason to claim there was "zero" evidence. There was certainly enough to convince 99% of the population which includes the 12 people that matter most. In HER opinion it was insuffient but that's not a legal appeal issue.

Let's move on to the boat "experiment". That, I am pretty sure, will be used. The problem IMO is that while it may be deemed an error -- I think it will be found harmless. The jury did not base their verdict solely on this action. The judge properly admonished them and explained that they can not base their opinion as to the stability of the boat on this and this alone. He made it clear to everyone that there are differences in the stability of a boat on and out of the water. I think the jury was smart enough to figure this out on their own, but he put the admonishment on the record.

Great post DD!

AW2B also mentions:

"no cause of death..no place of death..no time of death..no motive was ever identified.."

as to support there was ZERO evidence of murder. Those elements do NOT have to be proven by the prosecution. Why? Because sometimes it's info only the murderer would know. Esp. when the body is as decomposed (or never even found in a few murder trials) as Laci's was.

You can state this a million times and still some SIIs will ask, How, when, where, how and why. The prosecution only has to prove WHO. And they did prove that only Scott had the motive, means, & opportunity to murder Laci and Conner.

[deputydi]

Excellent post..I have zero doubt that the dismissal of Dr. Jackson will be one of powerful appeal issues that will overwhelm the court of appeal...
Unfortunately, when the real discussion begins, I'm at work and my time is severely limited. :D

I did find this and it's pretty interesting reading
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4888CCB7137A230588256EE600557A0A/$file/0355974.pdf?openelement

If the link works, scroll down to Brewer v Hall 10401

It is my understanding that Dr Jackson was alleged to be uncooperative and refused to deliberate when the other 11 didn't want to do things his way. Since I haven't heard anyone speak publicly about it, I don't know the full story. Neither does anyone else. If the rumors are true, J Delucci was fully justified in removing him.

[deputydi]

:biggrin: I seriously doubt any appeal issue will overwhelm the Appellate Judges.
<snip>
You can wager your firstborn that they have heard it all. Nothing is going to overwhelm them.

[deputydi]

Great post DD!

AW2B also mentions:

"no cause of death..no place of death..no time of death..no motive was ever identified.."

as to support there was ZERO evidence of murder. Those elements do NOT have to be proven by the prosecution. Why? Because sometimes it's info only the murderer would know. Esp. when the body is as decomposed (or never even found in a few murder trials) as Laci's was.

You can state this a million times and still some SIIs will ask, How, when, where, how and why. The prosecution only has to prove WHO. And they did prove that only Scott had the motive, means, & opportunity to murder Laci and Conner.
Exactly! It seems so easy to understand.

[attorneywan2be]

Thank you and thanks to AW2B for your responses. Can we take them one at a time?

The jury issues will probably be used in the habeas appeal, but not the first one. The first appeal will deal only with trial errors. So let's start with some of J Delucci's rulings that some are questioning:

The insufficient evidence claim listed by AW2B puzzles me. Just because it didn't convince her is no reason to claim there was "zero" evidence. There was certainly enough to convince 99% of the population which includes the 12 people that matter most. In HER opinion it was insuffient but that's not a legal appeal issue.

Let's move on to the boat "experiment". That, I am pretty sure, will be used. The problem IMO is that while it may be deemed an error -- I think it will be found harmless. The jury did not base their verdict solely on this action. The judge properly admonished them and explained that they can not base their opinion as to the stability of the boat on this and this alone. He made it clear to everyone that there are differences in the stability of a boat on and out of the water. I think the jury was smart enough to figure this out on their own, but he put the admonishment on the record.

Convictions have been reversed due to insufficient evidence...IMO, "sans speculation" there is zero evidence that Scott committed a murder..there is a huge difference between drawing inferences from established proven facts and establishing guilt based on speculation and conjecture..

As to the boat experiment..IMO, that could not be a harmless error since the use of the boat to dump the body with attached anchors was a VITAL issue in this case...in addition, Beratlis stated that they had questions in their minds regarding the stability of the boat the expert didn't address..so it was important enough for them to submit a request to the judge to view the boat..they even pretended to toss a body off the boat...!!

Smart enough? Beratlis said on Greta that they were testing the boat for stability and to show the buoyancy..

[USAHICK]

Convictions have been reversed due to insufficient evidence...IMO, "sans speculation" there is zero evidence that Scott committed a murder..there is a huge difference between drawing inferences from established proven facts and establishing guilt based on speculation and conjecture..

As to the boat experiment..IMO, that could not be a harmless error since the use of the boat to dump the body with attached anchors was a VITAL issue in this case...in addition, Beratlis stated that they had questions in their minds regarding the stability of the boat the expert didn't address..so it was important enough for them to submit a request to the judge to view the boat..they even pretended to toss a body off the boat...!!

Smart enough? Beratlis said on Greta that they were testing the boat for stability and to show the buoyancy..


I respectfully disagree with everything you've said here, and the facts have been shown and stated time and time again to prove nothing you've said here will be an appeals issue.

[Lavindar]

Convictions have been reversed due to insufficient evidence...IMO, "sans speculation" there is zero evidence that Scott committed a murder..there is a huge difference between drawing inferences from established proven facts and establishing guilt based on speculation and conjecture..

As to the boat experiment..IMO, that could not be a harmless error since the use of the boat to dump the body with attached anchors was a VITAL issue in this case...in addition, Beratlis stated that they had questions in their minds regarding the stability of the boat the expert didn't address..so it was important enough for them to submit a request to the judge to view the boat..they even pretended to toss a body off the boat...!!

Smart enough? Beratlis said on Greta that they were testing the boat for stability and to show the buoyancy..
Why are you ignoring the fact that Beratlis was kneeling in the boat and JACKSAN was the one standing. How can you get a verdict overturned when the action (experiment as you and Geragos like to call it) was done by someone who was no longer a member of the jury? If you want it overturned, it has to be done by someone who is ON the jury. Little hard to rock a boat when you are kneeling.

[attorneywan2be]

Great post DD!

AW2B also mentions:

"no cause of death..no place of death..no time of death..no motive was ever identified.."

as to support there was ZERO evidence of murder. Those elements do NOT have to be proven by the prosecution. Why? Because sometimes it's info only the murderer would know. Esp. when the body is as decomposed (or never even found in a few murder trials) as Laci's was.

You can state this a million times and still some SIIs will ask, How, when, where, how and why. The prosecution only has to prove WHO. And they did prove that only Scott had the motive, means, & opportunity to murder Laci and Conner.

IMO:

They didn't prove "Who" either..
There was Zero evidence that Laci's body was ever in his truck or toolbox..
There was Zero evidence that she was murdered in their house or his warehouse..
There was Zero evidence that he weighted her body down in the bay..they didn't prove that he made anchors ..they didn't prove that he attached those anchors to her body...they didn't even prove that it was possible for him to have done that...the prosecution presented an unproven theory..a figment of their imagination ..nothing more..!

[Miss Bootsie]

You might want to read this..however, I repeat that my theory is not based on Laci passing kidney stones..but this site talks about the mineral content in urine and the causes that would increase the level of mineral content in the urine....keep in mind that Laci did suffer from urinary tract infection during her pregnancy...:

The crystals that lead to kidney stones are likely to form when your urine contains a high concentration of certain substances — especially calcium, oxalate, uric acid and rarely, cystine — or low levels of substances that help prevent crystal formation, such as citrate and magnesium. Crystals also may form if your urine becomes too concentrated or is too acidic or too alkaline.

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

A number of factors can cause changes in your urine, including the effects of heredity, diet, drugs, climate, lifestyle factors and certain medical conditions. Each of the four main types of kidney stones has a different cause:

Calcium stones. Roughly four out of five kidney stones are calcium stones. These stones are usually a combination of calcium and oxalate. Oxalate is a compound that occurs naturally in some fruits and vegetables. A number of factors can cause high concentrations of these substances in urine. Excess calcium, for instance, may result from ingesting large amounts of vitamin D, from treatment with thyroid hormones or certain diuretics, and from some cancers and kidney conditions. You may also have high levels of calcium if your parathyroid glands, which regulate calcium metabolism, are overactive (hyperparathyroidism). On the other hand, certain genetic factors, intestinal bypass surgery and a diet high in oxalic acid may cause excess amounts of oxalate in your body.

Struvite stones. Found more often in women than in men, struvite stones are almost always the result of chronic urinary tract infections caused by bacteria that produce specific enzymes. These enzymes increase the amount of ammonia in the urine, which is incorporated in the crystals of struvite stones. These stones are often large, may have a characteristic stag's-horn shape and can seriously damage your kidneys.

Uric acid stones. These stones are formed of uric acid, a byproduct of protein metabolism. You're more likely to develop uric acid stones if you've undergone chemotherapy, you eat a high-protein diet or you have certain genetic factors that predispose you to the condition.

Cystine stones. These stones represent only a small percentage of kidney stones. They form in people with a hereditary disorder that causes the kidneys to excrete excessive amounts of certain amino acids (cystinuria).

Risk factors

These factors may increase your risk of developing kidney stones:

Lack of fluids. If you don't drink enough fluids, especially water, your urine is likely to have higher concentrations of substances that can form stones. That's also why you're more likely to form kidney stones if you live in a hot, dry climate, work in a hot environment, such as a commercial kitchen, or exercise strenuously without replacing lost fluids.

Family or personal history. If someone in your family has kidney stones, you're more likely to develop stones too. And if you've already had one or more kidney stones, you're at increased risk of developing another.

Age, sex and race. Most people who develop kidney stones are between 20 and 70 years of age. Men are more likely to develop kidney stones than are women. In addition, white Americans are at higher risk of kidney stones than are black Americans.

Certain diseases. Rare, inherited diseases such as renal tubular acidosis and cystinuria can increase your risk of kidney stones. So can more common disorders such as gout, chronic urinary tract infections and hyperparathyroidism.

Certain medications. Medications can have variable effects on stone formation. For example, diuretics may increase your risk of developing kidney stones in some situations and decrease it in others. If you're at risk, check with your doctor or pharmacist about any medications you take.

Diet. A diet that's high in protein (meat, chicken and fish) and sodium (salt), and low in whole grains and calcium may increase your risk of some types of kidney stones.

Limited activity. You're more prone to develop kidney stones if you're bedridden or very sedentary for a long period of time. That's because limited activity can cause your bones to release more calcium.

AW, you can't state that your theory is not based on Laci passing kidney stones, and then use information on what causes kidney stones in your argument.
In the past, you have also posted photos of kidney stones on another site to support your argument.
Can't have it both ways.




Your theory involves urine (produced by the kidney), that formed stones outside of the body.
I know why you are refraining from using the term, "kidney stones", but actually stones that may form from urine on the outside of the body should be referred to as kidney stones as well.


Dr. Peterson clearly stated the stones were not crystalline which excludes crystals formed by urine.
He knew those stones were not caused by urine.