Greta "on the record" will discuss Scott's appeal

[attorneywan2be]

Yesterday, Greta just presented a recap of the case..however tonight she will look into possible appeal issues and she will dig into the evidence of the case..

They said: Imagine being on the street walking past Scott Peterson. His supporters have been making a case for an appeal..Greta will dig into the details of the case in a very surprising report on what might happen now..

They also said : It is a surprising and revealing look at the question of whether Peterson could actually be falsely imprisoned and whether he should have a new trial. Some surprise guests will be in that story and they were very close to Scott Peterson.

[TopGunner]

I saw this AW2B. Waited 55 minutes, as it was on the last 5 minutes of the show. Personally I believe it's much to do about nothing. He's guilty, so anything they say will just be hype. Now, they also said Scott supporters think he should have a new trial. That's not NEW news. And to me, that is at the other end of the spectrum of saying he's innocent. It's like he's guilty, but the trial was unfair, so he should have another. I say he's guilty and should rot on deathrow.

I'll be watching tonight, it'd better be good, or I'll be so mad.

BTW- it's the killers birthday today, maybe that's the reason for the 5 minutes of fuss.

:seeya:

[Wearing A Halo]

I saw this AW2B. Waited 55 minutes, as it was on the last 5 minutes of the show. Personally I believe it's much to do about nothing. He's guilty, so anything they say will just be hype. Now, they also said Scott supporters think he should have a new trial. That's not NEW news. And to me, that is at the other end of the spectrum of saying he's innocent. It's like he's guilty, but the trial was unfair, so he should have another. I say he's guilty and should rot on deathrow.

I'll be watching tonight, it'd better be good, or I'll be so mad.

BTW- it's the killers birthday today, maybe that's the reason for the 5 minutes of fuss.

:seeya:

ITA TG,

I, too, am going to--

WATCH ON THE RECORD WITHG.

[TopGunner]

ITA TG,

I, too, am going to--

WATCH ON THE RECORD WITHG.

Well Angel, as predicted, it was much to do about N O T H I N G.

Less than nothing actually. It was 3 minutes long and they said that ISP suporters and family believe he should get a new trial because the jurors sat in the boat, because 3 jurors left, and because the concrete anchors weren't found by the divers. OMG, NO!!!!!!!!! ROFLMAO.

Same 'ol, same 'ol. What a bunch of cr*p.

Good seeing you though Ang! :seeya:

[Babes]

I saw this AW2B. Waited 55 minutes, as it was on the last 5 minutes of the show. Personally I believe it's much to do about nothing. He's guilty, so anything they say will just be hype. Now, they also said Scott supporters think he should have a new trial. That's not NEW news. And to me, that is at the other end of the spectrum of saying he's innocent. It's like he's guilty, but the trial was unfair, so he should have another. I say he's guilty and should rot on deathrow.

I'll be watching tonight, it'd better be good, or I'll be so mad.

BTW- it's the killers birthday today, maybe that's the reason for the 5 minutes of fuss.

:seeya:


IMO Greta isnt there tonight so maybe she's the one who will be discussing it on her show when she comes back tomorrow. We'll see. :)

[adnoid]

...ISP suporters and family believe he should get a new trial because the jurors sat in the boat, because 3 jurors left, and because the concrete anchors weren't found by the divers...

What?!?!?! No mention of the ubiquitous "No...." lists? Nothing about a bathtub? NO CALCULATION OF THE ODDS?!?!?!?!

Maybe they're keeping it all secret. Yeah - "Secret Evidence"! That's it.

[TopGunner]

What?!?!?! No mention of the ubiquitous "No...." lists? Nothing about a bathtub? NO CALCULATION OF THE ODDS?!?!?!?!

Maybe they're keeping it all secret. Yeah - "Secret Evidence"! That's it.

Hiya Adnoid! It was remarkably stupid, IMO. They said nothing new at all, only that his supporters think he should get a new trial. So? His supporters say a lot of things, that doesn't make it so. Besides, even if his parents "buy" him a new trial, he'll just be convicted again and it'll give us all something to talk about, LOL.

I said on another board that I smell some PR work, which as always, will just completely backfire.

Night night.:seeya:

[Wearing A Halo]

Well Angel, as predicted, it was much to do about N O T H I N G.

Less than nothing actually. It was 3 minutes long and they said that ISP suporters and family believe he should get a new trial because the jurors sat in the boat, because 3 jurors left, and because the concrete anchors weren't found by the divers. OMG, NO!!!!!!!!! ROFLMAO.

Same 'ol, same 'ol. What a bunch of cr*p.

Good seeing you though Ang! :seeya:

Hi TG,

!LOL!

All the 'molecules' in my head are spinning. I need a caffeine fix. Why no mention of a "watch withg"? Oh wait, we still have tomorrow!

(Greta *chuckles*)

[I'mSun]

What?!?!?! No mention of the ubiquitous "No...." lists? Nothing about a bathtub? NO CALCULATION OF THE ODDS?!?!?!?!

Maybe they're keeping it all secret. Yeah - "Secret Evidence"! That's it.Just 1 - NO concrete anchors. Looks like they're protecting that "Secret Evidence" at all costs - even ISP's! Greta said she doesn't know why the 3rd juror was sent home. LOL! ...everyone else does.

[I'mSun]

Well Angel, as predicted, it was much to do about N O T H I N G.

Less than nothing actually. It was 3 minutes long and they said that ISP suporters and family believe he should get a new trial because the jurors sat in the boat, because 3 jurors left, and because the concrete anchors weren't found by the divers. OMG, NO!!!!!!!!! ROFLMAO.

Same 'ol, same 'ol. What a bunch of cr*p.
You are right, TG - it was NOTHING.
Not even interesting, nothing new.

[attorneywan2be]

You are right, TG - it was NOTHING.
Not even interesting, nothing new.

We shall see..tonight Greta will discuss the appeals and she will have some guests..in the last 2 days her show basically covered the fires in CA..

[TopGunner]

We shall see..tonight Greta will discuss the appeals and she will have some guests..in the last 2 days her show basically covered the fires in CA..

I agree AW2B, the last 2 shows covered the fire, and also covered enough to let us understand that there is absolutely NO new news/evidence. Unless these mystery guests are witnesses w/photographs of the REAL killer, I repeat what I've already said...this is all just some lame PR work, and Greta should be ashamed of herself.

[I'mSun]

[snip] I repeat what I've already said...this is all just some lame PR work, and Greta should be ashamed of herself.

It's all about ratings and $$, TG. IF there was anything substantial, any new 'secret' evidence, I would think there would at least be an attorney of record for the Appeal. There isn't. And, I would think something would have been filed.

This page has the current status for ISP, Case# S132449

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/partiesAndAttorneys.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=362852&doc_no=S132449

Supreme Court Case: S132449
Court of Appeal Case(s): no data found
Case Caption: PEOPLE v. PETERSON (SCOTT)
Case Category: Automatic Appeal
Start Date: 03/16/2005
Case Status: awaiting counsel appt. (AA)
Issues: Automatic appeal from a judgment of death.
Case Citation: none

You can request automatic e-mail notifications about this case at the site, too.

[Heyes]

I bet greta finally got her interview with geragos. She sure waited a long time and during the trial even went so far as to back him, imo, in hopes to get the BIG interview.

I bet jackie is getting the web site all ready for those dona$ions that may roll in after the show! lol lol lol
We accept pay pal!
The petersons jag is a couple of years old now, we cannot expect them to drive up to the prison in that old thing.
lmao
imo

[Lavindar]

I agree AW2B, the last 2 shows covered the fire, and also covered enough to let us understand that there is absolutely NO new news/evidence. Unless these mystery guests are witnesses w/photographs of the REAL killer, I repeat what I've already said...this is all just some lame PR work, and Greta should be ashamed of herself.

I blinked and missed it!!!!

As for going free, should he be granted a new trial, I believe he will remain in custody during the same. "Free" is a L O N G W A Y down the pike from where he is now.

The only way he could go free is if someone confessed to the crime. Given the quarter of a million dollars that the Petersons are offering, the criminal element is sure keeping quiet. Hasn't that reward been out there for quite a while now?

[Wearing A Halo]

We shall see..tonight Greta will discuss the appeals and she will have some guests..in the last 2 days her show basically covered the fires in CA..

Yep, AW2B, we saw. Now what?

1. DRISP got a fair trial.

2. DRISP is still on death row.

3. DRISP is waiting.

[attorneywan2be]

Greta should be ashamed of herself.

I totally agree! She didn't deliver what she promised..!! What a waste of time...:flamemad:

[TopGunner]

I totally agree! She didn't deliver what she promised..!! What a waste of time...:flamemad:

Well AW2B, if you think about it.......what was there to "deliver"? He's guilty. :tongue:

However, if it makes you feel any better, it wasn't all that long ago when whats-his-name (Gawd, it's too early to think) did the same thing. I'll come back when I remember.:seeya:

[TopGunner]

ABRAMS! It was Dan Abrams...not to long ago he did the same thing. A whole bunch of hype about a whole bunch of nothing.

He's guilty. There's nothing to add or subtract to the story. When his appeals roll around it may stir up some debates, but in the end, he's staying put...he did it, can't get out of it.

[enlightenme]

Well AW2B, if you think about it.......what was there to "deliver"? He's guilty. :tongue:

However, if it makes you feel any better, it wasn't all that long ago when whats-his-name (Gawd, it's too early to think) did the same thing. I'll come back when I remember.:seeya:

Hey TG! Are you thinking of Dan Abrams? He had good 'ol Vernon on and that's about it.

Did you read some of the NG comments to Greta's blog? Same old stuff but a few "funnies" added in. One poster said they should have sequestered the jury for the entire trial and moved it to an out of state venue. LOL! I can see it now....State of CA via FL vs Scott Lee Peterson. :rolleyes:

[margaritaville]

Hey TG! Are you thinking of Dan Abrams? He had good 'ol Vernon on and that's about it.

Did you read some of the NG comments to Greta's blog? Same old stuff but a few "funnies" added in. One poster said they should have sequestered the jury for the entire trial and moved it to an out of state venue. LOL! I can see it now....State of CA via FL vs Scott Lee Peterson. :rolleyes:

LOL exactly... And would that still be concidered a jury of his "peers"?

It doesn't matter where you move it to, you could move it to Moscow and the evidence would still prove he is guilty!!! lol

IMO

[TopGunner]

Hey TG! Are you thinking of Dan Abrams? He had good 'ol Vernon on and that's about it.

Did you read some of the NG comments to Greta's blog? Same old stuff but a few "funnies" added in. One poster said they should have sequestered the jury for the entire trial and moved it to an out of state venue. LOL! I can see it now....State of CA via FL vs Scott Lee Peterson. :rolleyes:


LOL EM, nope, haven't gone to Greta's site, not interested in anything that's being said over there.

Wouldn't have mattered if they sequestered the jury and/or moved it to Florida. I'm 3,000 + miles away from Modesto. Everyone here thinks he's guilty too. :patriot:

[Lavindar]

Hey TG! Are you thinking of Dan Abrams? He had good 'ol Vernon on and that's about it.

Did you read some of the NG comments to Greta's blog? Same old stuff but a few "funnies" added in. One poster said they should have sequestered the jury for the entire trial and moved it to an out of state venue. LOL! I can see it now....State of CA via FL vs Scott Lee Peterson. :rolleyes:

Too bad, too. FL executes faster than CA.

I don't think any of the NG's are the sharpest crayons in the box. I have never heard such ridiculous theories than those they come up with.

My favorite is Marlene calling the hydrologist "junk science." What is her Kermit experiment? It's not only true JUNK science, it's littering. Goes along with Dalton's tossing a ball in the water and having it come up right where he wanted it to. No one has attempted to recreate the wind velocity, weather, or anything else for their experiments so that makes them null and void. You ahve to create identical circumstances for an experiment to be valid.

[TopGunner]

Too bad, too. FL executes faster than CA.

I don't think any of the NG's are the sharpest crayons in the box. I have never heard such ridiculous theories than those they come up with.

My favorite is Marlene calling the hydrologist "junk science." What is her Kermit experiment? It's not only true JUNK science, it's littering. Goes along with Dalton's tossing a ball in the water and having it come up right where he wanted it to. No one has attempted to recreate the wind velocity, weather, or anything else for their experiments so that makes them null and void. You ahve to create identical circumstances for an experiment to be valid.

LITTERING..... !!!! OMG, ROFLMAO!!!! ****!!! LOL!!!!!!!

:beer:

[WaitN4Ever]

Too bad, too. FL executes faster than CA.

I don't think any of the NG's are the sharpest crayons in the box. I have never heard such ridiculous theories than those they come up with.

My favorite is Marlene calling the hydrologist "junk science." What is her Kermit experiment? It's not only true JUNK science, it's littering. Goes along with Dalton's tossing a ball in the water and having it come up right where he wanted it to. No one has attempted to recreate the wind velocity, weather, or anything else for their experiments so that makes them null and void. You ahve to create identical circumstances for an experiment to be valid.


I understand he was convicted in a court of law. But when I look at the evidence it is all circumstancial and doens't proove he did it in my eyes.
He admitted to fishing in the bay and that was personally a set up for teh real killers to now know where to place Laci and Conner. This is a crazy case but since it started this is the things that I had observed. I do feel that the police were under media pressure to convict someone and Scott Peterson was the first and foremost subject. Evidence is very easily manuplated to make it appear that the husband did it. No crime scene but they can make it look as he did it because there was no crime scene.

[PsychNurse;~)]

it was just a coincidence that he told amber he'd LOST his wife, this would be his FIRST holidays without her, and he'd be FREE to spend more time with amber by the end of january.

it was just a coincidence that the very next day he's searching for a boat to buy (keeping in mind he'd not owned a single boat in all the years he and laci were together).

it was just a coincidence that laci disappeared on the very day isp took the boat out, driving at least 3.5 to 4.0 total hours to spend less than 1 hour on the water.

it was just a coincidence that about 10 days after telling amber the items in paragraph #1 they were all true.

it was also just a coincidence that the badly decomposed remains of laci and conner peterson were found washed ashore 4 months later, in the vicinity isp placed himself the day they disappeared, after a storm.

if i ever kill anyone i sure hope all you ng's will be on my jury!

~~cyn~~

[WaitN4Ever]

it was just a coincidence that he told amber he'd LOST his wife, this would be his FIRST holidays without her, and he'd be FREE to spend more time with amber by the end of january.

it was just a coincidence that the very next day he's searching for a boat to buy (keeping in mind he'd not owned a single boat in all the years he and laci were together).

it was just a coincidence that laci disappeared on the very day isp took the boat out, driving at least 3.5 to 4.0 total hours to spend less than 1 hour on the water.

it was just a coincidence that about 10 days after telling amber the items in paragraph #1 they were all true.

it was also just a coincidence that the badly decomposed remains of laci and conner peterson were found washed ashore 4 months later, in the vicinity isp placed himself the day they disappeared, after a storm.

if i ever kill anyone i sure hope all you ng's will be on my jury!

~~cyn~~


answer to 1st paragraph,
Most cheating men will give a sob story to the mistress to gain more compassion in a relationship. That was no surprise to me.

answer to 2nd paragraph,
Keep in mind that Scott desired fishing and my husband and myself hadn't owned a boat in the years we were together but that doesn't make it apparent that we don't want one or desire a boat. We plan on it when we get the $ to afford one. When that day comes I hope that no one will look at us for purchasing a boat since we've never had one prior.

answer to 3rd paragraph,
Is it just coincidence that the Medinas house was robbed the same day that Laci came up missing as well? That Scott was so far away when apparently Laci confronted the robbers and then she came up missing.

answer to 4th paragraph,
It apparenlty does appear as a coincidence in this case. I've seen things happen to people when they say something and it actually happen or even think something and it happen.

answer to 5th paragraph,
That wasn't a coincidence, that was planned. I do believe that Laci was abducted, possibly taken for her baby, so much of that happens even today. When things went wrong and it appeard that the media was running strong with this then it came apparent that the people that abducted Laci had to dispose of her and what better place could they do it. It would appear that Scott did it and the heat would be removed from anyone ever thinking that anyone else had done it.

[Lavindar]

answer to 1st paragraph,
Most cheating men will give a sob story to the mistress to gain more compassion in a relationship. That was no surprise to me. Most men don't go as far as Scott did in claiming he LOST his wife. They tend more towards 'my wife doesn't understand me.'

answer to 2nd paragraph, Keep in mind that Scott desired fishing and my husband and myself hadn't owned a boat in the years we were together but that doesn't make it apparent that we don't want one or desire a boat. We plan on it when we get the $ to afford one. When that day comes I hope that no one will look at us for purchasing a boat since we've never had one prior. I sure hope you don't disappear some day.

answer to 3rd paragraph,
Is it just coincidence that the Medinas house was robbed the same day that Laci came up missing as well? That Scott was so far away when apparently Laci confronted the robbers and then she came up missing.

There's no evidence that the Medina's house was robbed that morning. They didn't leave until 10:33. The mailman was on the street from abt 10:30-10:50. The dog was returned to the yard BEFORE the Medina's left. So she wasn't out walking the dog or the mailman would have seen her. That morning is pretty much covered by testimony and NONE of them saw or heard anything unusual at the Medina's house.
answer to 4th paragraph,
It apparenlty does appear as a coincidence in this case. I've seen things happen to people when they say something and it actually happen or even think something and it happen. How many coincidences does it take to prove it's not coincidence. PsychNuse gave you five. Can you show where there is ONE OTHER PERSON to whom those five "coincidences" apply? Geragos sure couldn't

answer to 5th paragraph,
That wasn't a coincidence, that was planned. I do believe that Laci was abducted, possibly taken for her baby, so much of that happens even today. When things went wrong and it appeard that the media was running strong with this then it came apparent that the people that abducted Laci had to dispose of her and what better place could they do it. It would appear that Scott did it and the heat would be removed from anyone ever thinking that anyone else had done it.

People who seek to "frame" someone do NOT hide a body where it won't be found for months. If they wanted to implicate Scot, why dump the bodies underwater - why not just leave them on the shore? No, these doofuses have to get a boat and take her out on the BAY WHICH IS BEING PATROLLED AT THIS TIME BY THE COAST GUARD and dump her where she will stay for some time.

[WaitN4Ever]

Most men don't go as far as Scott did in claiming he LOST his wife. They tend more towards 'my wife doesn't understand me.'
I sure hope you don't disappear some day.

Not everyone thinks on the same level. Everyone does things diffently. So why would Scott be like every other man. He isn't. He is his own person and did what he could to gain the compassion of another person. That is wrong what he did but cheating isn't a felony.



There's no evidence that the Medina's house was robbed that morning. They didn't leave until 10:33. The mailman was on the street from abt 10:30-10:50. The dog was returned to the yard BEFORE the Medina's left. So she wasn't out walking the dog or the mailman would have seen her. That morning is pretty much covered by testimony and NONE of them saw or heard anything unusual at the Medina's house.
How many coincidences does it take to prove it's not coincidence. PsychNuse gave you five. Can you show where there is ONE OTHER PERSON to whom those five "coincidences" apply? Geragos sure couldn't

Theres no proff that it wasn't robbed that morning either. Tehre is proof however that it was robbed. If I remember this correctly the neighbor couldn't remember the exact time but had to rely on a paper reciept as to the time. So when she returned it could've actually happened any time prior to that reciept. How long was the dog out running around before she noticed.



People who seek to "frame" someone do NOT hide a body where it won't be found for months. If they wanted to implicate Scot, why dump the bodies underwater - why not just leave them on the shore? No, these doofuses have to get a boat and take her out on the BAY WHICH IS BEING PATROLLED AT THIS TIME BY THE COAST GUARD and dump her where she will stay for some time.

No one knows what they had done with the bodies until they were found. Can you say for sure that they were in the bay? They sure didn't find them when they were looking for them, so apparently they may have not been there either. No one knows for sure where they were. All the people can do is speculate this sceniero.

[Lavindar]

Not everyone thinks on the same level. Everyone does things diffently. So why would Scott be like every other man. He isn't. He is his own person and did what he could to gain the compassion of another person. That is wrong what he did but cheating isn't a felony.





Theres no proff that it wasn't robbed that morning either. Tehre is proof however that it was robbed. If I remember this correctly the neighbor couldn't remember the exact time but had to rely on a paper reciept as to the time. So when she returned it could've actually happened any time prior to that reciept. How long was the dog out running around before she noticed.

She testified that she put the dog in the yard BEFORE she ran her errands. The dog was not runninr around either. He was standing in the middle of the street. She was home prior to leaving and she didn't notice anything either.






No one knows what they had done with the bodies until they were found. Can you say for sure that they were in the bay? They sure didn't find them when they were looking for them, so apparently they may have not been there either. No one knows for sure where they were. All the people can do is speculate this sceniero.

Experts testified that Laci's body was in the water for 3-6 months. They can use their EXPERTISE in the field to make their conclusions. Oddly enough, Dr. Boyd Stephens told Grogan exactly what shape Laci was in after being in the Bay for e months. Dr. Stephens is the "expert" on bodies in the Bay because he was the medical examiner in San Francisco.

[aingael]

I do believe that Laci was abducted, possibly taken for her baby, so much of that happens even today. When things went wrong and it appeard that the media was running strong with this then it came apparent that the people that abducted Laci had to dispose of her and what better place could they do it. It would appear that Scott did it and the heat would be removed from anyone ever thinking that anyone else had done it.

First, the incidence of a pregnant woman being killed by her spouse, significant other, the baby's father is MUCH greater than fetus-napping. This fetus-napping has become the ~new~ reason that Scott didn't do it and it doesn't float. There is no proof at all, compared to the proof that Scott did this reprehensible (using his words to describe himself) deed himself.

I would like you to answer this. When and were did they ~plant~ the bodies and where were they kept until they were planted.

Please, think carefully because I have other questions.

[Lavindar]

First, the incidence of a pregnant woman being killed by her spouse, significant other, the baby's father is MUCH greater than fetus-napping. This fetus-napping has become the ~new~ reason that Scott didn't do it and it doesn't float. There is no proof at all, compared to the proof that Scott did this reprehensible (using his words to describe himself) deed himself.

I would like you to answer this. When and were did they ~plant~ the bodies and where were they kept until they were planted.

Please, think carefully because I have other questions.I have to add this. pregnant women who are kidnapped for their fetuses - those are crimes committed by WOMEN, not men. It's usually a woman who has told her SO that she was pregnant and is trying to cover herself by appearing with a baby. I have found no MEN who commit this crime in my research.

[WaitN4Ever]

First, the incidence of a pregnant woman being killed by her spouse, significant other, the baby's father is MUCH greater than fetus-napping. This fetus-napping has become the ~new~ reason that Scott didn't do it and it doesn't float. There is no proof at all, compared to the proof that Scott did this reprehensible (using his words to describe himself) deed himself.

I would like you to answer this. When and were did they ~plant~ the bodies and where were they kept until they were planted.

Please, think carefully because I have other questions.

If I remember this correctly, it went something like this.
I think there was a man named Dolton or something like that and he had eye witnesses that seen someone in a boat in the bay dumping something that looked like a body. I don't remember the exact date but it was during the time after she came up missing and after Scott said he went fishing in Berkley. This could very well be the incident. I also think that the other scenerio was that there was some place down by the bay that had some witch craft going on and that was also and area of concern when it came to Laci's disappearence.

[WaitN4Ever]

I have to add this. pregnant women who are kidnapped for their fetuses - those are crimes committed by WOMEN, not men. It's usually a woman who has told her SO that she was pregnant and is trying to cover herself by appearing with a baby. I have found no MEN who commit this crime in my research.

ok, so where did I say that it was a man that actually committed this crime?
The actual perpatraiter has never been caught since they think Scott did it and they think they have their man.

[TopGunner]

ok, so where did I say that it was a man that actually committed this crime?
The actual perpatraiter has never been caught since they think Scott did it and they think they have their man.


But wait Wait. When did they take Laci? Where did they keep Laci? If they took her for Conner, why didn't they keep him? Why did they throw him in the bay? He was perfectly healthy before ISP kicked him, breaking Laci's ribs, and tossing him in the bay. And oh, where is the evidence that you're so convinced there should be?

:D :D

[WaitN4Ever]

But wait Wait. When did they take Laci? Where did they keep Laci? If they took her for Conner, why didn't they keep him? Why did they throw him in the bay? He was perfectly healthy before ISP kicked him, breaking Laci's ribs, and tossing him in the bay. And oh, where is the evidence that you're so convinced there should be?

:D :D

HELLO!!!!

I think I covered this, but here goes again.
They kidnapped Laci weather it be for Conner of their own unknown reasons. The reason they didn't keep Conner is because the media hype was putting pressure on them. They had to dispose of both of them. Thanks to the media. There was someone that even witnesses someone tossing something into the bay shaped like a body. It was dark and the person was never caught. Good thing or Scott would've been out a free man. But instead, that must have been SCott that went back and disposed of her. HUH?

[aingael]

If I remember this correctly, it went something like this.
I think there was a man named Dolton or something like that and he had eye witnesses that seen someone in a boat in the bay dumping something that looked like a body. I don't remember the exact date but it was during the time after she came up missing and after Scott said he went fishing in Berkley. This could very well be the incident. I also think that the other scenerio was that there was some place down by the bay that had some witch craft going on and that was also and area of concern when it came to Laci's disappearence.


No, I was asking for your opinion, since Laci and Conner were found on the shore, they either had to have been placed in the bay or on the shore by ~someone~ who wanted to frame Scott.

My question to you is, since you don't believe Scott did this horrendous act someone did and from your posts it appears you believe the bodies were planted.

What I am asking you is, when and where were the bodies planted. Were they planted on shore? Where they placed in the bay? Also, when were they planted (not exactly, but an approximate range).

Ohh BTW, I read Daltons book and I wont even consider anything in it as true, there were so many inconsistencies from actual testimony and from actual statements by the Peterson's themselves that I won't even talk about it.

[WaitN4Ever]

No, I was asking for your opinion, since Laci and Conner were found on the shore, they either had to have been placed in the bay or on the shore by ~someone~ who wanted to frame Scott.

My question to you is, since you don't believe Scott did this horrendous act someone did and from your posts it appears you believe the bodies were planted.

What I am asking you is, when and where were the bodies planted. Were they planted on shore? Where they placed in the bay? Also, when were they planted (not exactly, but an approximate range).

Ohh BTW, I read Daltons book and I wont even consider anything in it as true, there were so many inconsistencies from actual testimony and from actual statements by the Peterson's themselves that I won't even talk about it.


I believe the bodies were dumped in the bay after the time that Scott went fishing. I believe the reason that Scott only fished for an hour, is he realized that his boat was too small for the bay and decided to leave.
I don't know where the bodies were planted, I just remember on cross examination that Geragos asked Helton if police investigated the tip about Laci being held in a home near Tracy.

Helton said helicopters with heat-seeking devices flew over the area searching for signs of life, but he acknowledged that authorities never searched the buildings on the property, confirming Geragos' theory that someone held Laci until after hearing Peterson's fishing story, then dumped her body in the bay.

[aingael]

I believe the bodies were dumped in the bay after the time that Scott went fishing. I believe the reason that Scott only fished for an hour, is he realized that his boat was too small for the bay and decided to leave.
I don't know where the bodies were planted, I just remember on cross examination that Geragos asked Helton if police investigated the tip about Laci being held in a home near Tracy.

Helton said helicopters with heat-seeking devices flew over the area searching for signs of life, but he acknowledged that authorities never searched the buildings on the property, confirming Geragos' theory that someone held Laci until after hearing Peterson's fishing story, then dumped her body in the bay.

Interesting thoughts but......

If someone else had Laci and placed her in the bay, they would have to be very good at determining where Scott was in the bay. The San Francisco Bay is roughly the size of New Jersey, so placing the bodies in the location that Scott was, so that they would eventually come ashore with the trajectory of where Scott was would be greater than anyone can imagine. Either they were lucky or it could not have happened. I tend to think it could not have happened the odds are far to extreme to even remotely consider this as a plausible scenario.


Next, I will hazard the guess by your post that Conner was never taken from Laci in a crude C-section. If that is the case then fetus-napping was not a reason for her being taken. I mean, why go to all the trouble of kidnapping her for the baby and never taking it. Even with this being a high profile case, this person/person's could be caught either way and why not finish what they started. If they held her captive, they were already getting away with it so why give up and dump her to frame Scott? It doesn't make any sense at all.


Using the heat seeking equipment and not using it on buildings was another one of Geragos's wild fish stories. If she was kept in one of the buildings, there would be evidence that she was kept there. All that needed to be done is the defense using their investigators to explore them. It was never done, that leads me and others I am sure, to believe that there was nothing to it.

One of the things that I have always found interesting is the theories that have been thrown out there have never been investigated. If I were Scott's family I would be pretty PO'd at the attorney and detectives I paid a mighty high monetary price for did nothing, no investigating, nothing but throw out grandiose statements that have no basis in fact nor try to prove any of it.

[Invrdv8]

We shall see..tonight Greta will discuss the appeals and she will have some guests..in the last 2 days her show basically covered the fires in CA..

Wasn't Greta off somewhere with Laura Bush all last week? Maybe they just threw the Scott Peterson blurb on just to keep the ratings up while she was gone. Greta did the commentating but it wasn't anything we've never heard before. They always tintilate viewers with "You don't want to miss it" but then they leave you wishing you had!!! :D

[Toggie]

I believe the bodies were dumped in the bay after the time that Scott went fishing. I believe the reason that Scott only fished for an hour, is he realized that his boat was too small for the bay and decided to leave.
I don't know where the bodies were planted, I just remember on cross examination that Geragos asked Helton if police investigated the tip about Laci being held in a home near Tracy.

Helton said helicopters with heat-seeking devices flew over the area searching for signs of life, but he acknowledged that authorities never searched the buildings on the property, confirming Geragos' theory that someone held Laci until after hearing Peterson's fishing story, then dumped her body in the bay.

Why would "someone" who had gotten away with a kidnapping & murder take the chance of being caught by dumping the body in the bay? Why frame Scott? This unknown kidnapper left no evidence behind so why not drop the body in the river or a field?

[Otter]

Why would "someone" who had gotten away with a kidnapping & murder take the chance of being caught by dumping the body in the bay? Why frame Scott? This unknown kidnapper left no evidence behind so why not drop the body in the river or a field?

Because that doesn't tie into an NG scenario. What DRISP did was personal, and a dumping would be anonymous.

He was putting his repugnant signature on his crime. IMO.

[WaitN4Ever]

Interesting thoughts but......

If someone else had Laci and placed her in the bay, they would have to be very good at determining where Scott was in the bay. The San Francisco Bay is roughly the size of New Jersey, so placing the bodies in the location that Scott was, so that they would eventually come ashore with the trajectory of where Scott was would be greater than anyone can imagine. Either they were lucky or it could not have happened. I tend to think it could not have happened the odds are far to extreme to even remotely consider this as a plausible scenario..
That wouldn't be hard to figure out. He was out less then an hour, he took off from the Berkely Marina and in a small boat that didn't go very fast. Hmmm, Kinda makes your New Jersey look much smaller now don't it.


Next, I will hazard the guess by your post that Conner was never taken from Laci in a crude C-section. If that is the case then fetus-napping was not a reason for her being taken. I mean, why go to all the trouble of kidnapping her for the baby and never taking it. Even with this being a high profile case, this person/person's could be caught either way and why not finish what they started. If they held her captive, they were already getting away with it so why give up and dump her to frame Scott? It doesn't make any sense at all.
Nope I never claimed that Conner was taken from Laci by a Crude C-Section. There are several scenrios that could've happened. They could've held onto her and when the media hype started putting the pressure on everything then they apparently panic'd and wanted to get rid of Laci and what better place to do it. They now know where Scott went fishing and the approx location. Not much of a span from the Berkely Marina and then get rid of her and then leave. Now they didn't have to use the same Berkely Marina but apparently another one close by.


Using the heat seeking equipment and not using it on buildings was another one of Geragos's wild fish stories. If she was kept in one of the buildings, there would be evidence that she was kept there. All that needed to be done is the defense using their investigators to explore them. It was never done, that leads me and others I am sure, to believe that there was nothing to it.

One of the things that I have always found interesting is the theories that have been thrown out there have never been investigated. If I were Scott's family I would be pretty PO'd at the attorney and detectives I paid a mighty high monetary price for did nothing, no investigating, nothing but throw out grandiose statements that have no basis in fact nor try to prove any of it.

Not so far fetched. Dumber things from the Police has happened. They assume and mistakes are made.

The Petersons should've been much more upset, I agree. Just because they were treated just like their innocent Son.

[aingael]

That wouldn't be hard to figure out. He was out less then an hour; he took off from the Berkeley Marina and in a small boat that didn't go very fast. Hmmm, Kinda makes your New Jersey look much smaller now don't it.



Actually, it is not the size of the boat that you have to understand but the size of the motor, that is what is factored in with the speed.
First, from the ad placed by Mr. Peterson, the boat Scott purchased had a 15hp motor. (http://www.scottisinnocent.com/Trial/Trial/Guilt/prosexhibits/178E.JPG). Next area that needs to be looked at is the top speed of a 15hp motor. The top speed is 24mph. If Scott were going the maximum, the square miles he could have traveled in one hour is 576 square miles. Even if Scott used half that speed of 12mph he would still have been able to cover 144 square mile. All this is within an hour, just so you know. We don’t know exactly how long Scott was out in the bay but I do think an hour is a good place to start and within that hour he could have covered a good bit of water.
SSSOOOOO New Jersey is looking a little bigger than your thoughts.




They now know where Scott went fishing and the approx location. Not much of a span from the Berkeley Marina and then get rid of her and then leave. Now they didn't have to use the same Berkeley Marina but apparently another one close by.


Another bit of information, the first report of the whereabouts (shortly after the 25th) for Scott was given as “the bay area”, and that was in a release given by the MPD. SO we are back to the full size of New Jersey.
Next, on Jan. 2nd the MPD released a statement of “Berkley Marina” as Scott’s location for the 24th. At that same time police and divers started their search of the bay. On Jan. 10 they released a statement that the underwater search had located an object. For those 8 days were are back to approx 576 sq. miles or less, with police, civilians and boats out looking for Laci, and yet the people who kidnapped Laci for her baby (that they didn’t even take) baby loaded her into a boat (with the time that had passed chances are the body was decomposing and not smelling the best) into an area that is now very active with law enforcement and civilian to dump her body in the approximate area Scott was so that when and if she washed ashore it would match the location that Scott had said he was fishing.

You think this is more plausible than Scott dumping Laci’s body Christmas Eve?

[adnoid]

Actually, it is not the size of the boat that you have to understand but the size of the motor...

Dr. Ruth? Is that you?

[TopGunner]

Dr. Ruth? Is that you?

!!!!:biggrin:!!!

[aingael]

Dr. Ruth? Is that you?

Why yes it is :) me Dr. Ruth. I felt I must explain since we all know Scott's motor wasn't big at all but the boat did have a good size one.:biggrin:

The reason that he bought that boat was motor envy.
It had electric start with no little blue pills needed.

I could go on about it, you know things like pistons, strokes, friction......

but I'll be quiet now. :o

[adnoid]

...The reason that he bought that boat was motor envy.
It had electric start with no little blue pills needed...

And the one he already had was a pull start with a short cord that misfired most of the time?

[Heyes]

And the one he already had was a pull start with a short cord that misfired most of the time?


LMAO, misfired....... lol lol

[Lavindar]

And the one he already had was a pull start with a short cord that misfired most of the time?My son has a 70hp on his boat!!!!!!

[Invrdv8]

My son has a 70hp on his boat!!!!!!

On a 14 foot fishing boat?????

[I'mSun]

Actually, it is not the size of the boat that you have to understand but the size of the motor, I read that it was rather small.

[I'mSun]

And the one he already had was a pull start with a short cord that misfired most of the time?PIPLMAO!! :biggrin:

[Lavindar]

On a 14 foot fishing boat????? No, I'm not sure how big it is but it's not 14'

[sunbeam]

I totally agree! She didn't deliver what she promised..!! What a waste of time...:flamemad:
Hi AW2B,
I was shocked at the false advertisement of the show as well. But... at least a catchy tune was played out to the public, and all who was listening... Scott may be getting a new trial!:beer: It's nice to finally hear something positive get out into the public about the Peterson case.

[margaritaville]

Hi AW2B,
I was shocked at the false advertisement of the show as well. But... at least a catchy tune was played out to the public, and all who was listening... Scott may be getting a new trial!:beer: It's nice to finally hear something positive get out into the public about the Peterson case.



Hum..We must have watched different shows. so you got out of watching Greta that he will be getting a new trial?? LOL

[Wearing A Halo]

Hi AW2B,
I was shocked at the false advertisement of the show as well. But... at least a catchy tune was played out to the public, and all who was listening... Scott may be getting a new trial!:beer: It's nice to finally hear something positive get out into the public about the Peterson case.

!LOL!

DRISP may be getting a new trial was the false advertisement. Go figure! :shrug:

[Otter]

Hi AW2B,
I was shocked at the false advertisement of the show as well. But... at least a catchy tune was played out to the public, and all who was listening... Scott may be getting a new trial!:beer: It's nice to finally hear something positive get out into the public about the Peterson case.

Awww, how sweet. :) Why is that you think that "Scott" should be getting a new trial? Why do you not believe that justice has been done for Laci and Conner? What was that you heard that was positive? Do you know any Shakespearian quotes? I do. Want to hear some?

Do you even care about Laci and Conner?

Its nice. :rolleyes: Catchy tune. :rolleyes:

Welcome to the board sunbeam. Have you read the transcripts? :)

[I'mSun]

!LOL!

DRISP may be getting a new trial was the false advertisement. Go figure! :shrug:But, it was "catchy" :biggrin:

[Otter]

But, it was "catchy" :biggrin:

Yes, and "catchy tune" has her green light on. Come out, come out wherever you are.

C'mon, don't hit and run. Come out and play.

Have you read the transcipts? It would be nice to know what level we're dealing with. That's the only reason I ask.

[Otter]

C'mon Sunbeam, you've been replying to this thread for so long according to the software. Just spit it out! You won't be witty, no matter how hard you try.

You too Rosie! Speak out!

Tell me why he's innocent!

ETA: sunbeam, replying to this thread... still. I'm bored, maybe there will be some meat tomorrow.

[sunbeam]

Awww, how sweet. :) Why is that you think that "Scott" should be getting a new trial? Why do you not believe that justice has been done for Laci and Conner? What was that you heard that was positive? Do you know any Shakespearian quotes? I do. Want to hear some?

Do you even care about Laci and Conner?

Its nice. :rolleyes: Catchy tune. :rolleyes:

Welcome to the board sunbeam. Have you read the transcripts? :)
Hello, and thanks for the welcome Otter.
Why do I think Scott should get a new trial? There was no evidence of murder. A fishing trip and an affair. Continuing to talk to Amber after Laci was missing is not evidence he killed Laci. He made up all kinds of wacky lies to Amber. But that doesn't make him a killer. Not one shred of evidence was found in Peterson's home, or his warehouse linking him to this crime. Nothing but one of Laci's hairs, which everyone knows when man and wife do their laundry together, the husband does get the wife's hair on his clothing which could end up anywhere he ends up! Wouldn't someone have seen him take something large out on a boat that day... with the boat being as small as it was, you would think some eye witness would have seen him on his little boat with something large, and then struggling, if it was even at all possible in that boat at all to dump this body in the bay. Of cource that wasn't permitted a demonstration during the trial to see if it was even possible to complete this task in such a small boat anyway. No eye-witnesses, no evidence of foul play in the home ever. Scott never abused Laci physically or verbally. Nothing to that affect was testified in court.

[MazeMazie]

who will defend him...this should be interesting:punch:

[Lavindar]

Hello, and thanks for the welcome Otter.
Why do I think Scott should get a new trial? There was no evidence of murder. A fishing trip and an affair. Continuing to talk to Amber after Laci was missing is not evidence he killed Laci. He made up all kinds of wacky lies to Amber. But that doesn't make him a killer. Not one shred of evidence was found in Peterson's home, or his warehouse linking him to this crime. Nothing but one of Laci's hairs, which everyone knows when man and wife do their laundry together, the husband does get the wife's hair on his clothing which could end up anywhere he ends up! Wouldn't someone have seen him take something large out on a boat that day... with the boat being as small as it was, you would think some eye witness would have seen him on his little boat with something large, and then struggling, if it was even at all possible in that boat at all to dump this body in the bay. Of cource that wasn't permitted a demonstration during the trial to see if it was even possible to complete this task in such a small boat anyway. No eye-witnesses, no evidence of foul play in the home ever. Scott never abused Laci physically or verbally. Nothing to that affect was testified in court.


Please explain how this "transferred" hair gets wound up in pliers and smashed flat by the teeth of said pliers. That is NOT transfer.

No one saw Scott because the Bay was deserted the day before Christmas and THAT WAS testified to. The Harbormaster said the water was like GLASS that day. Very calm. No rain.

What would be the evidence of foul play in the home? Some blood. She lived there. If she ever cut her finger, there would be blood evidence in the house. Fingerprints? Again, she lived there. Her fingerprints SHOULD have been there. A person murdered in the place they live in does not usually leave any evidence as anything that could be evidence would occur in normal activities in teh dwelling. Her hair in the pliers in the boat however was evidence. There was NO TESTIMONY THAT LACI HAD EVER BEEN IN THAT WAREHOUSE. How could her hair MESHED IN THE PLIERS have gotten there?

[Wearing A Halo]

Hello, and thanks for the welcome Otter.
Why do I think Scott should get a new trial? There was no evidence of murder. A fishing trip and an affair. Continuing to talk to Amber after Laci was missing is not evidence he killed Laci. He made up all kinds of wacky lies to Amber. But that doesn't make him a killer. Not one shred of evidence was found in Peterson's home, or his warehouse linking him to this crime. Nothing but one of Laci's hairs, which everyone knows when man and wife do their laundry together, the husband does get the wife's hair on his clothing which could end up anywhere he ends up! Wouldn't someone have seen him take something large out on a boat that day... with the boat being as small as it was, you would think some eye witness would have seen him on his little boat with something large, and then struggling, if it was even at all possible in that boat at all to dump this body in the bay. Of cource that wasn't permitted a demonstration during the trial to see if it was even possible to complete this task in such a small boat anyway. No eye-witnesses, no evidence of foul play in the home ever. Scott never abused Laci physically or verbally. Nothing to that affect was testified in court.

Sunbeam, what is your understanding of evidence and the types of evidence that are used by prosecutors in a court of criminal law?

[sunbeam]

Please explain how this "transferred" hair gets wound up in pliers and smashed flat by the teeth of said pliers. That is NOT transfer.

No one saw Scott because the Bay was deserted the day before Christmas and THAT WAS testified to. The Harbormaster said the water was like GLASS that day. Very calm. No rain.

What would be the evidence of foul play in the home? Some blood. She lived there. If she ever cut her finger, there would be blood evidence in the house. Fingerprints? Again, she lived there. Her fingerprints SHOULD have been there. A person murdered in the place they live in does not usually leave any evidence as anything that could be evidence would occur in normal activities in teh dwelling. Her hair in the pliers in the boat however was evidence. There was NO TESTIMONY THAT LACI HAD EVER BEEN IN THAT WAREHOUSE. How could her hair MESHED IN THE PLIERS have gotten there?
That's your evidence- the hair? My husband has called me from work saying he's found my hair on his things at work, and that's no lie. He's called from work just to tell me he just found my hair on him or on his things. Good thing I'm still alive huh? That being actual evidence of murder is actually humorous.
Seriously though, he was convicted of murder because of his affair and behavior not being what was expected. Not all people react and behave the same, but that doesn't make them a killer. How do you explain Scott never abusing Laci? Even in the case of Jesse Marie Davis, Bobby had a history of abusing women.

[enlightenme]

:beer: That's your evidence- the hair? My husband has called me from work saying he's found my hair on his things at work, and that's no lie. He's called from work just to tell me he just found my hair on him or on his things. Good thing I'm still alive huh? That being actual evidence of murder is actually humorous.
Seriously though, he was convicted of murder because of his affair and behavior not being what was expected. Not all people react and behave the same, but that doesn't make them a killer. How do you explain Scott never abusing Laci? Even in the case of Jesse Marie Davis, Bobby had a history of abusing women.


Seriously though, he was convicted of murder not because of an affair or the way he "acted", although that sucked. He was convicted because the bodies of his wife and child washed ashored less than 2 miles of where he went "fishing" the day that Laci disappeared. THAT was the major contributing guilty evidence, IMO.

[JustMyOpinion]

That's your evidence- the hair? My husband has called me from work saying he's found my hair on his things at work, and that's no lie. He's called from work just to tell me he just found my hair on him or on his things. Good thing I'm still alive huh? That being actual evidence of murder is actually humorous.



If you were reported missing by your husband, and your hair was later found in pliers recovered from a boat he had purchased shortly before reporting you missing, and your body washed ashore 2 miles from where he claimed he went "fishing" on the day you disappeared, I would find the hair in the pliers to be incriminating circumstantial evidence.
I don't understand how your husband calling you from work saying he found your hair on his "things" is relevant to the evidence in the Peterson case.
The hair in the pliers wasn't the only evidence in the Peterson case. Did you follow the trial?

[Wearing A Halo]

That's your evidence- the hair? My husband has called me from work saying he's found my hair on his things at work, and that's no lie. He's called from work just to tell me he just found my hair on him or on his things. ...Snipped

Sunbeam,

Has your husband found your hair in his truck and on his own clothing. (without you being present at the time.)?

[Wearing A Halo]

...Snipped. How do you explain Scott never abusing Laci? ...Snipped

Well Sunbeam, this is a loaded question.

[Otter]

Well Sunbeam, this is a loaded question.

It sure is. Let's see, the cheating, the lies, and whatever other emotional abuse that went on behind closed doors. Unfortunately, Laci is dead and is forever silent about that subject.

And then he murdered her. With premeditation and in cold blood.

[Lavindar]

That's your evidence- the hair? My husband has called me from work saying he's found my hair on his things at work, and that's no lie. He's called from work just to tell me he just found my hair on him or on his things. Good thing I'm still alive huh? That being actual evidence of murder is actually humorous.
Seriously though, he was convicted of murder because of his affair and behavior not being what was expected. Not all people react and behave the same, but that doesn't make them a killer. How do you explain Scott never abusing Laci? Even in the case of Jesse Marie Davis, Bobby had a history of abusing women.

Did your husband find your hair wrapped around and mashed by a pair of pliers. There's a BIG difference between transfer and a hair winding itself around an enclosed in a pair of pliers. You seem to ignore how the hairs were placed and how they got in that position.

Did the hair wrap itself around the pliers? Did the hair close the pliers onto itself. Now that's a miracle of Biblical proportions.

[Lavindar]

It sure is. Let's see, the cheating, the lies, and whatever other emotional abuse that went on behind closed doors. Unfortunately, Laci is dead and is forever silent about that subject.

And then he murdered her. With premeditation and in cold blood. There were instances of verbal abuse by Scott that were not used in court. Scott learned a lot from his mother - like how to put people down verbally.

Apple-tree

[Lavindar]

If you were reported missing by your husband, and your hair was later found in pliers recovered from a boat he had purchased shortly before reporting you missing, and your body washed ashore 2 miles from where he claimed he went "fishing" on the day you disappeared, I would find the hair in the pliers to be incriminating circumstantial evidence.
I don't understand how your husband calling you from work saying he found your hair on his "things" is relevant to the evidence in the Peterson case.
The hair in the pliers wasn't the only evidence in the Peterson case. Did you follow the trial?

Here's something else to think about. Why was there none of Laci's hairs found in his truck where she presumably was a passenger at one time or another? There was a video shown in court that showed Laci riding in Scott's truck. Why was there no hair of Laci's found in the truck?

I would say that sunbeam is not well versed on this case and has certainly NOT read any of the transcripts or evidence reported at the trial.

[TopGunner]

There were instances of verbal abuse by Scott that were not used in court. Scott learned a lot from his mother - like how to put people down verbally.

Apple-tree

Here on the East Coast it's acorn-tree. LOL!!!!

After watching the P's "performance" throughout the ordeal, it was incredibly easy to see how ISP became the gem he is. IT'S ALL ABOUT ME, DAMMIT.

:patriot:

[sunbeam]

Here's something else to think about. Why was there none of Laci's hairs found in his truck where she presumably was a passenger at one time or another? There was a video shown in court that showed Laci riding in Scott's truck. Why was there no hair of Laci's found in the truck?

I would say that sunbeam is not well versed on this case and has certainly NOT read any of the transcripts or evidence reported at the trial.
The hair is so unbelievably irrelevant in this case. Now your asking why hair was not in his truck, and why it was someplace else instead. Your talking in circles. What is your scenario as to why a SINGLE STRAND of Laci's hair was in Scott's pliers? Oh, and here's another thing considered to be so-called circumstantial evidence... Scott didn't know what he was fishing for. My husband never knows what he's fishing for, but goes fishing. He says, "You just get what you get." There's your circumstantial evidence in this case to put someone on death row!

[TopGunner]

The hair is so unbelievably irrelevant in this case. Now your asking why hair was not in his truck, and why it was someplace else instead. Your talking in circles. What is your scenario as to why a SINGLE STRAND of Laci's hair was in Scott's pliers? Oh, and here's another thing considered to be so-called circumstantial evidence... Scott didn't know what he was fishing for. My husband never knows what he's fishing for, but goes fishing. He says, "You just get what you get." There's your circumstantial evidence in this case to put someone on death row!

That unbelievably irrelevant hair clamped in plyers in the secret boat was relevant to 12 people, and THANK GOD, their opinons did matter. I've never known a fisherman to drive 90 miles away from home to just "get what he gets", but then, I've never known a murderer either. Go figure.
:biggrin:

[Wearing A Halo]

The hair is so unbelievably irrelevant in this case. Now your asking why hair was not in his truck, and why it was someplace else instead. Your talking in circles. What is your scenario as to why a SINGLE STRAND of Laci's hair was in Scott's pliers? Oh, and here's another thing considered to be so-called circumstantial evidence... Scott didn't know what he was fishing for. My husband never knows what he's fishing for, but goes fishing. He says, "You just get what you get." There's your circumstantial evidence in this case to put someone on death row!

Sunbeam, the one person to whom you must ask, "What is your scenario as to why a SINGLE STRAND of Laci's hair was in Scott's pliers?" is DRISP himself since it was his pliers in his boat. It would not be hard to ask him since you are able to write to him over at CCADP and pumpkinpie would be so "happy" to help you get in touch with DRISP. :seeya:

[Otter]

Sunbeam, the one person to whom you must ask, "What is your scenario as to why a SINGLE STRAND of Laci's hair was in Scott's pliers?" is DRISP himself since it was his pliers in his boat. It would not be hard to ask him since you are able to write to him over at CCADP and pumpkinpie would be so "happy" to help you get in touch with DRISP. :seeya:

:eek: I didn't think copying posts from other boards was allowed here. If not implicit, its certainly bad form.

Great catch WAH! :patriot:

[sunbeam]

Sunbeam, the one person to whom you must ask, "What is your scenario as to why a SINGLE STRAND of Laci's hair was in Scott's pliers?" is DRISP himself since it was his pliers in his boat. It would not be hard to ask him since you are able to write to him over at CCADP and pumpkinpie would be so "happy" to help you get in touch with DRISP. :seeya:

Really? Cool! Do you know pumpkinpie? Do you know who she is? It's funny you would mention pumpkinpie. I know pumpkinpie pretty well actually. Do you? Well you should... because your talking to her now!!:biggrin:

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Really? Cool! Do you know pumpkinpie? Do you know who she is? It's funny you would mention pumpkinpie. I know pumpkinpie pretty well actually. Do you? Well you should... because your talking to her now!!:biggrin:

:seeya: Good to know!

[Otter]

Really? Cool! Do you know pumpkinpie? Do you know who she is? It's funny you would mention pumpkinpie. I know pumpkinpie pretty well actually. Do you? Well you should... because your talking to her now!!:biggrin:

Can I ask you a question if you are indeed that woman? BTW, I respect the opinion of the NG's as long as they stick to the facts and can debate civilly.

IIRC, you are a mod at CCADP. CCADP is an "organization" that sponsors flowery pages to lure "penpals" for monsters. Charles Ng, David Westerfield, Richard Rameriz, etc. Who knew that Ng loves butterflies. :cuss:

How can you associate with such a group? What are their motives for glorifying such "people" and what are your's, albeit by your tacit proxy and approval as a moderator of their message board?

I'm simply curious.

[Wearing A Halo]

Really? Cool! Do you know pumpkinpie? Do you know who she is? It's funny you would mention pumpkinpie. I know pumpkinpie pretty well actually. Do you? Well you should... because your talking to her now!!:biggrin:

Yes it is funny I would mention pumpkinpie since your posts are laughable. !LOL!

[sunbeam]

Yes it is funny I would mention pumpkinpie since your posts are laughable. !LOL!

It's good to know that I've got fans.
Thank you, thank you!

[sunbeam]

Can I ask you a question if you are indeed that woman? BTW, I respect the opinion of the NG's as long as they stick to the facts and can debate civilly.

IIRC, you are a mod at CCADP. CCADP is an "organization" that sponsors flowery pages to lure "penpals" for monsters. Charles Ng, David Westerfield, Richard Rameriz, etc. Who knew that Ng loves butterflies. :cuss:

How can you associate with such a group? What are their motives for glorifying such "people" and what are your's, albeit by your tacit proxy and approval as a moderator of their message board?

I'm simply curious.
I'm not going to discuss ccadp on here. But thanks for reading my posts on there sweety.:rose: I'm flattered.

[margaritaville]

I'm not going to discuss ccadp on here. But thanks for reading my posts on there sweety.:rose: I'm flattered.



You are not pumpkinpie if you were you wouldn't be scared to answer a simple question!!

IMO

[I'mSun]

It's good to know that I've got fans.
"Fans?" I don't think so. :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

[Wearing A Halo]

It's good to know that I've got fans.
Thank you, thank you!

I am not a fan of you. No need to thank me!

[Otter]

I'm not going to discuss ccadp on here. But thanks for reading my posts on there sweety.:rose: I'm flattered.

Don't flatter yourself too much. :D I don't read there, I'm interested in facts rather than wild speculation and lies. That's why I added "IIRC". And, IIRC, it was good for a laugh.

Don't you have any qualms about giving your support to a egomaniac that lives to shock and runs a site that only sensationalizes the worst of the worst? Guilt by association ... its true.

You brought up ccadp, if you didn't care to discuss it, why did you feel it necessary to let us know who you are? :confused:

[sunbeam]

You are not pumpkinpie if you were you wouldn't be scared to answer a simple question!!

IMO
Because it's way off topic to this discussion. You have read my posts apparently, so you already know my views...

Believe me if you want.. I really could care less.

[sunbeam]

Don't flatter yourself too much. :D I don't read there, I'm interested in facts rather than wild speculation and lies. That's why I added "IIRC". And, IIRC, it was good for a laugh.

Don't you have any qualms about giving your support to a egomaniac that lives to shock and runs a site that only sensationalizes the worst of the worst? Guilt by association ... its true.

You brought up ccadp, if you didn't care to discuss it, why did you feel it necessary to let us know who you are? :confused:
I did not bring it up, wearing a halo brought up pumpkinpie and ccadp, that was when I went ahead and told you who I was! It wasn't exactly the plan, or I would have just registered here as pumkinpie.

[deputydi]

The hair is so unbelievably irrelevant in this case. Now your asking why hair was not in his truck, and why it was someplace else instead. Your talking in circles. What is your scenario as to why a SINGLE STRAND of Laci's hair was in Scott's pliers? Oh, and here's another thing considered to be so-called circumstantial evidence... Scott didn't know what he was fishing for. My husband never knows what he's fishing for, but goes fishing. He says, "You just get what you get." There's your circumstantial evidence in this case to put someone on death row!
The hair IMO is a major issue. Forensics would expect to find her hair in Scott's truck, in their shared home, on his clothing, but absolutely not twisted in a pair of pliers found in a boat no one knew anything about.

Your husband is obviously not a very serious fisherman. The type of bait, lures, poles, etc is used depending on the type of fishing you intend to do. Scott later claimed he was fishing for Sturgeon and that is a very large fish. Certainly not the type of fishing one would do ALONE in a small boat that he had never put in the water.

Thank goodness the twelve people who mattered understood this.

[I'mSun]

Of cource Scott later claimed to be fishing for sturgeon, Was this after he claimed he was playing golf?

[deputydi]

<snip>Your right, 12 people who mattered understood this. That's why one of them has been in and out of the nut ward since, and struck up a friendship with Scott after she sent him to death row. Other jurors were dismissed from the trial because they believed him to be innocent. If any of the jurors believed Scott was innocent, they were dismissed from the trial and replaced. No, Scott wasn't railroaded, not at all.:rolleyes:
This is speculation and conjecture on your part PERIOD. You can't possibly know how any of the dismissed jurors would have voted. If you are referring to Strawberry Shortcake, she did not strike up a friendship. As she has explained, she wrote to him in order to get some closure. The experience was traumatic for her and probably the other 11 also. Do you honestly believe they enjoyed sentencing a human being to death? Had I been on that jury, I would have had to convict him based on the evidence but it would also deeply affect me.

[Invrdv8]

Of cource Scott later claimed to be fishing for sturgeon, after he was interogated many times and treated like it was evidence of murder for him to not know what he was fishing for! Of cource he's going to have an answer at that point.
Your right, 12 people who mattered understood this. That's why one of them has been in and out of the nut ward since, and struck up a friendship with Scott after she sent him to death row. Other jurors were dismissed from the trial because they believed him to be innocent. If any of the jurors believed Scott was innocent, they were dismissed from the trial and replaced. No, Scott wasn't railroaded, not at all.:rolleyes:

A jury member "struck up a friendship" with Scott? That was NO "friendship" that was two people using each other. The juror was hoping to get Scott to confess and Scott was hoping the juror would say something that he could use for an appeal. Falconer was dismissed because he spoke to people he shouldn't have during the trial. The Dr./Lawyer was a little whacko and he asked to be dismissed a couple of times before he actually was. And the other juror admitted to doing some research on the internet which was a big no-no. They were not dismissed because they "believed him to be innocent"! You're absolutely right, "Scott wasn't railroaded, not at all"! BTW, I haven't met a fisherman yet who didn't know exactly what he was fishing for and they go where those species of fish are prevelant.

[I'mSun]

No, Scott wasn't railroaded, not at all.
I'm glad you finally realized that.

[Lili007]

HELLO!!!!

I think I covered this, but here goes again.
They kidnapped Laci weather it be for Conner of their own unknown reasons. The reason they didn't keep Conner is because the media hype was putting pressure on them. They had to dispose of both of them. Thanks to the media. There was someone that even witnesses someone tossing something into the bay shaped like a body. It was dark and the person was never caught. Good thing or Scott would've been out a free man. But instead, that must have been SCott that went back and disposed of her. HUH?

I see. So now the media is responsible for Laci's and Conner's deaths! Why not? Anyone and everyone, except Scott! HUH??

JMO

[Lili007]

A jury member "struck up a friendship" with Scott? That was NO "friendship" that was two people using each other. The juror was hoping to get Scott to confess and Scott was hoping the juror would say something that he could use for an appeal. Falconer was dismissed because he spoke to people he shouldn't have during the trial. The Dr./Lawyer was a little whacko and he asked to be dismissed a couple of times before he actually was. And the other juror admitted to doing some research on the internet which was a big no-no. They were not dismissed because they "believed him to be innocent"! You're absolutely right, "Scott wasn't railroaded, not at all"! BTW, I haven't met a fisherman yet who didn't know exactly what he was fishing for and they go where those species of fish are prevelant.

Especially when he was looking up "sturgeon" and tides on the internet just prior, and he couldn't even estimate the size of a "sturgeon" when asked what he was fishing for. LOL

JMO

[Lili007]

Of cource Scott later claimed to be fishing for sturgeon, after he was interogated many times and treated like it was evidence of murder for him to not know what he was fishing for! Of cource he's going to have an answer at that point.
Your right, 12 people who mattered understood this. That's why one of them has been in and out of the nut ward since, and struck up a friendship with Scott after she sent him to death row. Other jurors were dismissed from the trial because they believed him to be innocent. If any of the jurors believed Scott was innocent, they were dismissed from the trial and replaced. No, Scott wasn't railroaded, not at all.:rolleyes:

I don't know what the "of course" is about. ??

Of course Scott bought a boat that he kept secret?

Of course that Scott told his mistress that he "lost" his wife a couple of weeks before he actually did (well, he didn't lose her, exactly... just tried to make her lost)

Of course that Scott would take his secret boat on a trip to Berkley on the day his wife "disappeared

Of course that his wife's decomposed and mutilated body and the body of his son washed up where he went "fishing" on the day they disappeared.

Of course. What could be more natural and believable? :mad:

JMO

[Lili007]

I'm not going to discuss ccadp on here. But thanks for reading my posts on there sweety.:rose: I'm flattered.

No need. I'm sure I don't mean to flatter you :) . Just answering your post - that's all.

For your information, I disagree, and always have, with the death penalty on principle. However, there comes a case once in a while when I don't feel so adamant about. Scott Peterson's is one of them.

I just don't see where he gets off taking two lives, one young and vibrant and expecting one of the most wonderful things in life - a child of her own - and the other, that child that didn't even get to take a breath.

Why is his life worth more that Laci's and Conner's? They didn't murder anyone - they just lived and wanted to live, love, grow and enjoy.

Where does someone get off killing the most vulnerable - a pregnant mother and child - and expect people to fall at their feet with forgiveness and light?

There have been many evil killers in this world, unfortunately, and all of them are evil.

But one who kills his own family because he wants a different lifestyle.... that's just a different kind of evil, one that is almost worse, if that's possible.

JMO

[Otter]

Why would the juror want a confession out of Scott IF she was so sure he was guilty? She must have had her doubts then, considering she sent a man to death row on no actual evidence. Yeah, it would be troubling my mind too if I did that.


Closure. She knew he did it. As were you, and I wasn't in the courtroom to watch the POS. She did. Do you know any murderers? I don't. Sitting in a room with one like DRISP just might bother me a bit.

This isn't a board to discuss the dp. Its not good to get O/T. :)

[Lili007]

Because it's way off topic to this discussion. You have read my posts apparently, so you already know my views...

Believe me if you want.. I really could care less.

Really? Then why do you keep arguing your "views" ?

If you could care less, one would think you'd move on, having stated them.

JMO

[attorneywan2be]

The type of bait, lures, poles, etc is used depending on the type of fishing you intend to do. Scott later claimed he was fishing for Sturgeon and that is a very large fish. Certainly not the type of fishing one would do ALONE in a small boat that he had never put in the water.

Thank goodness the twelve people who mattered understood this.

IMO

We know Scott was a fisherman..and we know he searched the internet for information about different type of fish INCLUDING Sturgeons..striped bass..etc..so if he was simply lying about the fishing trip why didn't he just give them names of small fish when he was asked about what he was fishing for? do you think he didn't know the names of small fish? he certainly had the knowledge to give them the perfect answer..so what he said is what he was actually doing because his intention was mainly to get the boat in the water..
Sadly..the jury that convicted him didn't understand this..

[TopGunner]

IMO

We know Scott was a fisherman..and we know he searched the internet for information about different type of fish INCLUDING Sturgeons..striped bass..etc..so if he was simply lying about the fishing trip why didn't he just give them names of small fish when he was asked about what he was fishing for? do you think he didn't know the names of small fish? he certainly had the knowledge to give them the perfect answer..so what he said is what he was actually doing because his intention was mainly to get the boat in the water..
Sadly..the jury that convicted him didn't understand this..


IMO

We know no such thing. What we DO know is that in EIGHT years, he agreed to go fishing with Ron, the TRUE fisherman, ONCE. Then left his pole in their garage where it remained for over a year and a half. Why didn't he just give them the names of small fish? LOL......why did he say he went golfing? Why fresh water lurers? Why the secret boat? Why the lover? Why lie about the time you left the house??? AW2B, we can sit here all day asking why a socialpath LIES, but I highly doubt we'll come up with anything that makes sense.:patriot:

[attorneywan2be]

Other jurors were dismissed from the trial because they believed him to be innocent. If any of the jurors believed Scott was innocent, they were dismissed from the trial and replaced.

IMO

You're absolutely right Sunbeam...judge Delucchi didn't articulate a just cause for Jackson's removal ..so that could be ground for reversal..

[Otter]

IMO

You're absolutely right Sunbeam...judge Delucchi didn't articulate a just cause for Jackson's removal ..so that could be ground for reversal..

He didn't articulate it to you. Or me. You don't think its in the record?

Oh yeah, Judge D was in on the big world-wide conspiracy.:rolleyes:

Of course, this is only MHO.

[Invrdv8]

Why would the juror want a confession out of Scott IF she was so sure he was guilty? She must have had her doubts then, considering she sent a man to death row on no actual evidence. Yeah, it would be troubling my mind too if I did that.

Why would anybody want a confession? Maybe because she wanted to finally get Scott to own up to what he did. "She" wasn't alone in putting Scott on DR, there are 11 other jurors that can take credit for that. BTW, there was CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence. I think it would be troubling for any juror that had to sentence a man to death!! JMO

[TopGunner]

IMO

You're absolutely right Sunbeam...judge Delucchi didn't articulate a just cause for Jackson's removal ..so that could be ground for reversal..

Jackson asked to be removed. He approached the judge in a pout becasue he wasn't able to review all his written notes, and disect it into a petri dish full of his theories. The records are sealed, how do you know no cause was articulated?

[Invrdv8]

IMO

We know Scott was a fisherman..and we know he searched the internet for information about different type of fish INCLUDING Sturgeons..striped bass..etc..so if he was simply lying about the fishing trip why didn't he just give them names of small fish when he was asked about what he was fishing for? do you think he didn't know the names of small fish? he certainly had the knowledge to give them the perfect answer..so what he said is what he was actually doing because his intention was mainly to get the boat in the water..
Sadly..the jury that convicted him didn't understand this..

If Scott's "intention was mainly to get the boat in the water" why didn't he just say he was going to try out his new boat? Why lie and say he was going fishing? That lie led to another lie about what he was fishing for. He didn't give them names of small fish because STURGEON was the first to pop into his head. One of the things that the jury understood about Scott is that he's a habitual LIAR! JMO

[margaritaville]

If Scott's "intention was mainly to get the boat in the water" why didn't he just say he was going to try out his new boat? Why lie and say he was going fishing? That lie led to another lie about what he was fishing for. He didn't give them names of small fish because STURGEON was the first to pop into his head. One of the things that the jury understood about Scott is that he's a habitual LIAR! JMO


Exactly!!


And another thing.. If Scott was just there to "get his boat in the water" why there? Is that the closest body of water to Modesto?

It doesn't make sense which is why I am sure that he said he was "fishing"...
And your right, sturgeon probably just popped into to his head.

With everything else that he planned, being asked what he was fishing for he probably hadn't thought of...

IMO

[attorneywan2be]

If Scott's "intention was mainly to get the boat in the water" why didn't he just say he was going to try out his new boat? Why lie and say he was going fishing? That lie led to another lie about what he was fishing for. He didn't give them names of small fish because STURGEON was the first to pop into his head. One of the things that the jury understood about Scott is that he's a habitual LIAR! JMO

IMO

He didn't lie..he did tell Brocchini on Dec 24th (see the TS of Brocchini's interview presented by the prosecution) that the MAIN reason he went to the bay was to get the boat in the water..note: he said the MAIN reason not the ONLY reason..so he also did some fishing while at it so to speak..in other words... like in "why not drop a line while testing the boat"..

Scott told Brocchini about the exact location he went fishing..he also told him that he went to the warehouse and did some work..Brocchini testified that Scott told him a lot of truth..

[attorneywan2be]

He didn't articulate it to you. Or me. You don't think its in the record?

Oh yeah, Judge D was in on the big world-wide conspiracy.:rolleyes:

Of course, this is only MHO.

IMO

Yep...judge Delucchi didn't articulate a just cause according to the defense motion for a new trial..he didn't put it in the record...!!

[attorneywan2be]

Jackson asked to be removed. He approached the judge in a pout becasue he wasn't able to review all his written notes, and disect it into a petri dish full of his theories. The records are sealed, how do you know no cause was articulated?

According to the defense motion for a new trial, judge Delucchi didn't articulate a just cause which he was required to do before removing a juror...

[sunbeam]

IMO

You're absolutely right Sunbeam...judge Delucchi didn't articulate a just cause for Jackson's removal ..so that could be ground for reversal..
Hi AW2B,
Nice to see you back over in this section! Thanks. :beer:

[Invrdv8]

IMO

You're absolutely right Sunbeam...judge Delucchi didn't articulate a just cause for Jackson's removal ..so that could be ground for reversal..

How can you possibly state that Sunbeam is "absolutely right" when she states the "jurors were dismissed because they believed Scott was innocent"? The three were dismissed for very specific reasons. Falconer because he talked to people he shouldn't have in the very short time he sat on the jury. The female (can't remember her name) because she did a search on the internet which was a big no-no. Last but not least Jackson, the Dr./Lawyer, who requested to be dismissed on at least two occasions. I'm sure the reason(s) he was removed is in the court records. JMO

[sunbeam]

I would greatly appreciate it if you would take your personal information and family stories elsewhere. This is the Scott Peterson thread, not the Sunbeam Family Tree thread. What your husband and brother in law do is completely unrelated to this case and the facts that we already know.
Scott didn't know what he was fishing for was so called evidence of guilt.-b.s.
Laci's single strand of hair in Scott's plier was so called evidence of guilt.-b.s.
I just proved to you how common those 2 scenarios are.... how common it is for a husband to be in contact with his wife's hair. How it does happen that men go fishing in non serious ways just see what they can catch. So common that I can and have related to both sceneros.....:tongue:

[TopGunner]

Scott didn't know what he was fishing for was so called evidence of guilt.-b.s.
Laci's single strand of hair in Scott's plier was so called evidence of guilt.-b.s.
I just proved to you how common those 2 scenarios are.... how common it is for a husband to be in contact with his wife's hair. How it does happen that men go fishing in non serious ways just see what they can catch. So common that I can and have related to both sceneros.....:tongue:


Maybe you should call the LE and see if they're hiring.:D

[Invrdv8]

IMO

He didn't lie..he did tell Brocchini on Dec 24th (see the TS of Brocchini's interview presented by the prosecution) that the MAIN reason he went to the bay was to get the boat in the water..note: he said the MAIN reason not the ONLY reason..so he also did some fishing while at it so to speak..in other words... like in "why not drop a line while testing the boat"..

Scott told Brocchini about the exact location he went fishing..he also told him that he went to the warehouse and did some work..Brocchini testified that Scott told him a lot of truth..

So he said the MAIN reason was to get the boat in the water. Where did the "fishing" thing come in then? How does one test a boat with a fishing line in the water or how does one fish while testing a boat? He told Brocchini where he was testing the boat/fishing because he never believed Laci would be found. "A lot of truth" is not ALL the truth.

[attorneywan2be]

How can you possibly state that Sunbeam is "absolutely right" when she states the "jurors were dismissed because they believed Scott was innocent"? The three were dismissed for very specific reasons. Falconer because he talked to people he shouldn't have in the very short time he sat on the jury. The female (can't remember her name) because she did a search on the internet which was a big no-no. Last but not least Jackson, the Dr./Lawyer, who requested to be dismissed on at least two occasions. I'm sure the reason(s) he was removed is in the court records. JMO

IMO

According to the TS..several jurors told the judge that they were talking about the anchor in this case BEFORE deliberations...juror # 6 discussed the case on the bus with Gregory Jackson..the judge overlooked jurors violations when he felt like it..Gregory Jackson told the judge that he felt his safety was at issue because of the looks and the comments that were addressed to him..Guinasso told the media that had Gregory Jackson stayed on the jury it would have been a hung jury!

Keep in mind that juror request to be removed is not a justified reason for removal..the judge didn't investigate the threats Jackson referred to..etc..etc..

Removal of jurors after deliberations had already started is going to be a huge appeal issue...mark my word..

[attorneywan2be]

Hi AW2B,
Nice to see you back over in this section! Thanks. :beer:

Hi Sunbeam...:seeya:

[I'mSun]

How can you possibly state that Sunbeam is "absolutely right" when she states the "jurors were dismissed because they believed Scott was innocent"? The three were dismissed for very specific reasons. Falconer because he talked to people he shouldn't have in the very short time he sat on the jury. The female (can't remember her name) because she did a search on the internet which was a big no-no. Last but not least Jackson, the Dr./Lawyer, who requested to be dismissed on at least two occasions. I'm sure the reason(s) he was removed is in the court records. JMOYou are preaching to the choir, Invrdv8, even though you are correct. They know this; we know this. Some people simply choose not to believe it because it won't fit into their theory.

[TopGunner]

IMO

According to the TS..several jurors told the judge that they were talking about the anchor in this case BEFORE deliberations...juror # 6 discussed the case on the bus with Gregory Jackson..the judge overlooked jurors violations when he felt like it..Gregory Jackson told the judge that he felt his safety was at issue because of the looks and the comments that were addressed to him..Guinasso told the media that had Gregory Jackson stayed on the jury it would have been a hung jury!

Keep in mind that juror request to be removed is not a justified reason for removal..the judge didn't investigate the threats Jackson referred to..etc..etc..

Removal of jurors after deliberations had already started is going to be a huge appeal issue...mark my word..


Consider it marked, like all the other words, LOL. I just don't see it AW2B. I see the NG's chewing on it like a bone, because there's nothing else, but Delucchi knew what he was doing, ISP will never EVER see the light of day because of that fruit-loop Jackson. Alternates are there for a reason, being used isn't grounds for appeal.

[attorneywan2be]

Consider it marked, like all the other words, LOL. I just don't see it AW2B. I see the NG's chewing on it like a bone, because there's nothing else, but Delucchi knew what he was doing, ISP will never EVER see the light of day because of that fruit-loop Jackson. Alternates are there for a reason, being used isn't grounds for appeal.


I noticed you didn't say "mark my word"..but I'll mark it anyway..we shall see who is right! :biggrin:

[tsky]

How many times was Scott in the bay? Was he there on the day his wife came up missing and then went fishing again at a later date or did he use the boat only one time that we know about?

P.S. - Can someone tell me how a man finds a hair on his shirt and automatically knows that it belongs to his wife? Does said man also carry a DNA testing kit? If said hair does belong to the man's wife whom he spends the great majority of his time with why is the finding the hair newsworthy?:shrug:

[Lili007]

IMO

He didn't lie..he did tell Brocchini on Dec 24th (see the TS of Brocchini's interview presented by the prosecution) that the MAIN reason he went to the bay was to get the boat in the water..note: he said the MAIN reason not the ONLY reason..so he also did some fishing while at it so to speak..in other words... like in "why not drop a line while testing the boat"..

Scott told Brocchini about the exact location he went fishing..he also told him that he went to the warehouse and did some work..Brocchini testified that Scott told him a lot of truth..

He told other people that he was golfing that morning. So when did he not lie? :biggrin:

Pretty huge difference between a sport that requires golf clubs and a golf course, and a 90-mile trip to "test" a boat in SF Bay, no? I wouldn't have thought it would be so difficult to remember what exactly he did that morning - golfing or fishing? They're about as similar to each other as... well, you figure it out. :)

JMO

[I'mSun]

He told other people that he was golfing that morning. So when did he not lie? :biggrin:

Pretty huge difference between a sport that requires golf clubs and a golf course, and a 90-mile trip to "test" a boat in SF Bay, no? I wouldn't have thought it would be so difficult to remember what exactly he did that morning - golfing or fishing? They're about as similar to each other as... well, you figure it out. :)

JMOThere you have the new Peterson sport, golfishing. :biggrin:

[margaritaville]

How many times was Scott in the bay? Was he there on the day his wife came up missing and then went fishing again at a later date or did he use the boat only one time that we know about?

P.S. - Can someone tell me how a man finds a hair on his shirt and automatically knows that it belongs to his wife? Does said man also carry a DNA testing kit? If said hair does belong to the man's wife whom he spends the great majority of his time with why is the finding the hair newsworthy?:shrug:

Because this "said hair" was found wrapped around a pliers which were in a secret boat that even Laci didn't know existed or had ever been in.(alive anyway)


IMO

[tsky]

Because this "said hair" was found wrapped around a pliers which were in a secret boat that even Laci didn't know existed or had ever been in.(alive anyway)


IMO

No Laci's hair on pliers in a mystery boat is weird. Sunbeams hair on her husbands shirt, not so much.

I don't know all the facts to the case but I want to know if it is known how many times Scott was actually on the boat after Laci's disappearance.

[Invrdv8]

IMO

According to the TS..several jurors told the judge that they were talking about the anchor in this case BEFORE deliberations...juror # 6 discussed the case on the bus with Gregory Jackson..the judge overlooked jurors violations when he felt like it..Gregory Jackson told the judge that he felt his safety was at issue because of the looks and the comments that were addressed to him..Guinasso told the media that had Gregory Jackson stayed on the jury it would have been a hung jury!

Keep in mind that juror request to be removed is not a justified reason for removal..the judge didn't investigate the threats Jackson referred to..etc..etc..

Removal of jurors after deliberations had already started is going to be a huge appeal issue...mark my word..

How about your affirmation that the "jurors were dismissed because they believed Scott was innocent"? You don't honestly believe that do you?

I'm sure Jackson discussed with the judge the reason(s) he asked to be dismissed. Obviously the judge didn't feel "his safety was in jeopardy because of looks and comments". He asked the judge to dismiss him more than once. Delucchi only accommodated Jackson when he said he couldn't do the job he was there to do, or words to that effect.

I think Jackson thought because he was a Dr./Lawyer he was superior to all the other jurors. It would be interesting to have a look at all the many notebooks he filled during the trial to see just how many of his notes actually pertained to the facts in the case.

JMO

[Lavindar]

Exactly!!


And another thing.. If Scott was just there to "get his boat in the water" why there? Is that the closest body of water to Modesto?

It doesn't make sense which is why I am sure that he said he was "fishing"...
And your right, sturgeon probably just popped into to his head.

With everything else that he planned, being asked what he was fishing for he probably hadn't thought of...

IMO

There's the Tuolumne River, the Stanislaus River, the San Joaquin River, the Delta, Woodward, Don Pedro, Tulloch, Modesto Reservoir, Turlock Reservoir, and others that don't come to mind - all of which are closer and more appropriate for a 14' FRESHWATER boat.

[Lavindar]

No Laci's hair on pliers in a mystery boat is weird. Sunbeams hair on her husbands shirt, not so much.

I don't know all the facts to the case but I want to know if it is known how many times Scott was actually on the boat after Laci's disappearance.

Scott's boat and truck were impounded, I believe

[attorneywan2be]

How about your affirmation that the "jurors were dismissed because they believed Scott was innocent"? You don't honestly believe that do you?
JMO

IMO

I believe that judge Delucchi dismissed jurors that would have caused a hung jury..in this case those jurors were for "not guilty"..for example, it was all over the news that Justin Falconer was pro-defense..Delucchi removed him..also Gregory Jackson told the judge that he was concerned about his safey due to comments made to him by other jurors...that gave Delucchi this message--->if Gregory would stay it would be a hung jury..so he removed him without full investigation..he should have declared a mistrial...had Jackson stayed it would have been a hung jury Guinasso told the media..
On the other hand, serious violations by other jurors were ignored..he was very selective in his appilcation of the law depending on which juror violated the jury instructions.

[TopGunner]

IMO

I believe that judge Delucchi dismissed jurors that would have caused a hung jury..in this case those jurors were for "not guilty"..for example, it was all over the news that Justin Falconer was pro-defense..Delucchi removed him..also Gregory Jackson told the judge that he was concerned about his safey due to comments made to him by other jurors...that gave Delucchi this message--->if Gregory would stay it would be a hung jury..so he removed him without full investigation..he should have declared a mistrial...had Jackson stayed it would have been a hung jury Guinasso told the media..
On the other hand, serious violations by other jurors were ignored..he was very selective in his appilcation of the law depending on which juror violated the jury instructions.

JMO

AW2B, Falconer wasn't even on the jury for THREE weeks. Every single one that's been interviewed felt the exact same way he did at that point in time during the trial. Every single one said the tides changed when the tapes came out. Big mouth was long gone by then. Nobody could have predicted the outcome of the trial at that point, so your theory on him goes out the window. NOBODY threatened the nutty professor. He clearly could not get a grip and was a major distraction to the process, which even he agreed to. As to dismissing him without a full investigation, that is merely your opinion. You weren't in the chambers, and I dare say I trust Delucchi's experience and knowledge over your opinion (nothing personal, it common sense). I would have tossed Jackson too, regardless of his personal opinion, he was NOT doing as instructed. You failed to mention the juror who came forth and admitted she researched information on the computer. She was a G, but Guinasso supported her dismissal because he didn't want a mistrial, which totally blows the whole "they dismissed anyone who would cause a hung jury" out the window.

That jury did exactly what they were instructed. They have been CLEAR that they all felt he was innocent going in. I love when the NG's chew on the jury bone, there's no substance there at all. They were the best of the best, and they carried out their instructions perfectly. After all the evidence was presented, there's not a thinking MIND on earth that could allow him to walk, which of course, he never will!
:beer:

[Lavindar]

JMO

AW2B, Falconer wasn't even on the jury for THREE weeks. Every single one that's been interviewed felt the exact same way he did at that point in time during the trial. Every single one said the tides changed when the tapes came out. Big mouth was long gone by then. Nobody could have predicted the outcome of the trial at that point, so your theory on him goes out the window. NOBODY threatened the nutty professor. He clearly could not get a grip and was a major distraction to the process, which even he agreed to. As to dismissing him without a full investigation, that is merely your opinion. You weren't in the chambers, and I dare say I trust Delucchi's experience and knowledge over your opinion (nothing personal, it common sense). I would have tossed Jackson too, regardless of his personal opinion, he was NOT doing as instructed. You failed to mention the juror who came forth and admitted she researched information on the computer. She was a G, but Guinasso supported her dismissal because he didn't want a mistrial, which totally blows the whole "they dismissed anyone who would cause a hung jury" out the window.

That jury did exactly what they were instructed. They have been CLEAR that they all felt he was innocent going in. I love when the NG's chew on the jury bone, there's no substance there at all. They were the best of the best, and they carried out their instructions perfectly. After all the evidence was presented, there's not a thinking MIND on earth that could allow him to walk, which of course, he never will!
:beer:


ITA. Geragos made such a huge issue of ONLY the two dismissed jurors - he neglected to mention 1/3 of the total of the dismissed jurors. Jackson did everything in his power to get tossed from that jury. You can't blame the judge for Jackson attempting to talk about the case outside of deliberations to other jurors. You can't blame the judge for Jackson's not following the rules that were unanimously set forth during deliberations. He voted for them, then disregarded them. YOu can't blame the judge because Jackson refused to take a poll before any discussions began. Jackson deliberately did everything he could to be tossed from that jury. There were not threats against him unless you consider the heavy sighs of the other jurors, when he attempted to include things not in evidence in his deliberations. Heavy sighs do NOT constitute a threat. But of course, someone who wants to believe that the Judge failed to give Scott a fair trial. Can we discuss Geragos's "new evidence" claims or "lack of discovery" when they were patently Geragos lies and delaying tactics - can you say Target bag? Can you say brown van? Can you say "red herring Thursdays?

[Invrdv8]

IMO

I believe that judge Delucchi dismissed jurors that would have caused a hung jury..in this case those jurors were for "not guilty"..for example, it was all over the news that Justin Falconer was pro-defense..Delucchi removed him..also Gregory Jackson told the judge that he was concerned about his safey due to comments made to him by other jurors...that gave Delucchi this message--->if Gregory would stay it would be a hung jury..so he removed him without full investigation..he should have declared a mistrial...had Jackson stayed it would have been a hung jury Guinasso told the media..
On the other hand, serious violations by other jurors were ignored..he was very selective in his appilcation of the law depending on which juror violated the jury instructions.

Justin Falconer has a big mouth. He didn't hear all the evidence. He was only on the jury for a very, very short time. He got his 15 minutes of fame and then turned tail and ran.

You first stated Jackson told the judge he feared for his safety because of the looks and comments he was getting. Now it's just because of the comments? "Comments" makes it sound more threatening, right? It's been reported that Jackson was a little off-the-wall to begin with. He even went so far as to leave the country I've heard. IMO, Guinasso said Jackson would have hung the jury because Jackson made it clear he wasn't there to deliberate.

The female juror was dismissed for doing some kind of search on the internet. Was she a "not guilty" also?

If there were others who committed "serious violations" why is it Falconer and Jackson are the only ones who get talked about?

Because what you "believe" Delucchi did and why doesn't make it so.

[I'mSun]

IMO

I believe that judge Delucchi dismissed jurors that would have caused a hung jury..in this case those jurors were for "not guilty"..for example, it was all over the news that Justin Falconer was pro-defense..Delucchi removed him..also Gregory Jackson told the judge that he was concerned about his safey due to comments made to him by other jurors...that gave Delucchi this message--->if Gregory would stay it would be a hung jury..so he removed him without full investigation..he should have declared a mistrial...had Jackson stayed it would have been a hung jury Guinasso told the media..
On the other hand, serious violations by other jurors were ignored..he was very selective in his appilcation of the law depending on which juror violated the jury instructions.MOO
If the three jurors had NOT been removed it most likely would have caused a mistrial. Their removal had nothing to do with how they felt about Scott; it had everything to do with the three jurors themselves and their actions. It was all over the news that Justin Falconer was talking to the family and about the case, which wasn't allowed. Fran Gorman did independent research on her computer - again, that is not allowed. Jackson was bordering on juror misconduct, among other things.

You claim they were removed in order to ensure the guilty verdict. How would Delucci know this? Did all the jurors tell him? Did he have microphones in the room? Do you REALLY think Delucci would risk having a mistrial by removing jurors without just cause so he could be assured of a guilty verdict? It just doesn't happen that way, and Delucci is far smarter than that.

[Pampster]

The female juror who was dismissed admitted that she was leaning toward guilty. No votes had been taken at the time any of the three jurors were dismissed so the theory that the were removed for being NG's doesn't hold water.

Honestly, it doesn't matter. If someone other than Scott had been arrested for the murders, the very same people who defend Scott would be defending him. They just love murderers in general and refuse to believe anyone is guilty. It's a sickness, IMO.

[Wearing A Halo]

IMO

According to the TS..several jurors told the judge that they were talking about the anchor in this case BEFORE deliberations...juror # 6 discussed the case on the bus with Gregory Jackson..the judge overlooked jurors violations when he felt like it..Gregory Jackson told the judge that he felt his safety was at issue because of the looks and the comments that were addressed to him..Guinasso told the media that had Gregory Jackson stayed on the jury it would have been a hung jury!

Keep in mind that juror request to be removed is not a justified reason for removal..the judge didn't investigate the threats Jackson referred to..etc..etc..

Removal of jurors after deliberations had already started is going to be a huge appeal issue...mark my word..

According to the TS..several jurors told the judge that they were talking about the anchor in this case BEFORE deliberations...

The "several jurors" were juror #5 JF and alternate #6. JF just didn't know when to zip it. So much so, that he made up his own website and began to sell bracelets. AW2B, did you buy one?

# 6 discussed the case on the bus with Gregory Jackson..

AW2B, it was GJ who initiated the discussion. Read the TS again:

Juror 5: In the jury room.... I questioned him about those opinions.

The Court: On the bus?

Juror 5: On the bus. And because -- well, I mean the reasons are probably irrelevant. But it was a good discussion and an interesting discussion. And I continued to want to pursue this line of discussion.

the judge overlooked jurors violations when he felt like it..

The judge took every jurors concerns very seriously and not "when he felt like it". It was MG who whined and JD (in my words) told him to go pound sand!

Gregory Jackson told the judge that he felt his safety was at issue because of the looks and the comments that were addressed to him...

GJ is less than honest. He can't even tell the truth and hides behind "I prefer not to do that." It was he who brought up his "safety" issue. Go figure!

The Court: Who is responsible for these comments?

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

Guinasso told the media that had Gregory Jackson stayed on the jury it would have been a hung jury!

JG also stated: "I wasn't being a rat," Guinasso states. "I was there for the system. I go by the rules."

Keep in mind that juror request to be removed is not a justified reason for removal..

It is justified when:

The Court: As you sit there now, do you feel, if you were to continue to deliberate in this case, that you could be a fair and impartial juror in this case?

Juror 5: No.

The Court: If you deliberated further, do you feel you would be able to follow the jury's instructions and reach a just verdict in this case?

Juror 5: No.

The Court: Okay. We'll put you back outside. One other question. Can you give me the reason for that, why you feel that way?

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

the judge didn't investigate the threats Jackson referred to..etc..etc..

The Court: You have been threatened bodily?

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

JD did investigate as much as he could. It was GJ that was a headcase.

Removal of jurors after deliberations had already started is going to be a huge appeal issue...

It will be an appeal issue, but not huge.

mark my word...

"We'll see what happens."-JD

[TopGunner]

According to the TS..several jurors told the judge that they were talking about the anchor in this case BEFORE deliberations...

The "several jurors" were juror #5 JF and alternate #6. JF just didn't know when to zip it. So much so, that he made up his own website and began to sell bracelets. AW2B, did you buy one?

# 6 discussed the case on the bus with Gregory Jackson..

AW2B, it was GJ who initiated the discussion. Read the TS again:

Juror 5: In the jury room.... I questioned him about those opinions.

The Court: On the bus?

Juror 5: On the bus. And because -- well, I mean the reasons are probably irrelevant. But it was a good discussion and an interesting discussion. And I continued to want to pursue this line of discussion.

the judge overlooked jurors violations when he felt like it..

The judge took every jurors concerns very seriously and not "when he felt like it". It was MG who whined and JD (in my words) told him to go pound sand!

Gregory Jackson told the judge that he felt his safety was at issue because of the looks and the comments that were addressed to him...

GJ is less than honest. He can't even tell the truth and hides behind "I prefer not to do that." It was he who brought up his "safety" issue. Go figure!

The Court: Who is responsible for these comments?

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

Guinasso told the media that had Gregory Jackson stayed on the jury it would have been a hung jury!

JG also stated: "I wasn't being a rat," Guinasso states. "I was there for the system. I go by the rules."

Keep in mind that juror request to be removed is not a justified reason for removal..

It is justified when:

The Court: As you sit there now, do you feel, if you were to continue to deliberate in this case, that you could be a fair and impartial juror in this case?

Juror 5: No.

The Court: If you deliberated further, do you feel you would be able to follow the jury's instructions and reach a just verdict in this case?

Juror 5: No.

The Court: Okay. We'll put you back outside. One other question. Can you give me the reason for that, why you feel that way?

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

the judge didn't investigate the threats Jackson referred to..etc..etc..

The Court: You have been threatened bodily?

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

JD did investigate as much as he could. It was GJ that was a headcase.

Removal of jurors after deliberations had already started is going to be a huge appeal issue...

It will be an appeal issue, but not huge.

mark my word...

"We'll see what happens."-JD

Excellent, excellent post Ang! But................mark my words. It'll all be repeated, again...and again....and again. (Beats uterus horns though!).
:biggrin:

[attorneywan2be]

IMO..Judge Delucchi was not interested in jury violations committed by others..he was just interested in juror #5 "Justin Falconer"...for example, he totally ignored what juror #2 was about to tell him ..the judge asked if he had heard other jurors commenting on the case, he replied that he thought he heard something, at that point the judge interruped him and asked another question in regards to juror #5....he didn't want to know if other jurors were breaking the rules...he also ignored what juror #7 told him about the fact that several jurors asked about the weight and the size of the anchor in the case, but he couldn't remember who those jurors were.. he also said, that on occasions, there would be a conversation going, and someone would go "shh" and everyone would stop..!!!!!!

Let me make something clear..it doesn't matter who initiated a discussion about the case...each juror that took part of a discussion about the case was also in violation of the rules..clearly there were several jurors discussing the case..Delucchi should have conducted a full investigation..in fact.. he should have declared a mistrial because it was obvious jury misconduct was widespread..


Quote:

The Court: Have you ever heard juror number 5, at least while you were in there, make any comments about the evidence in this case?

Juror 2: About the evidence?

The Court: For example, have you ever heard him say anything about the anchor which was marked into evidence yesterday?

Juror 2: No. Didn't hear any of that.

The Court: Okay. Have you heard any comments about Detective Brocchini's testimony by juror number 5?

Juror 2: No.

The Court: Have you heard any comment about Laci Peterson's weight during her pregnancy?

Juror 2: No.

The Court: Have you heard any comments on the Modesto Police Department reports by officers regarding their inconsistencies?

Juror 2: No.

The Court: Have you heard any comments about the prosecution and their deficiencies as lawyers to present this case?

Juror 2: From juror number 5?

The Court: Yeah.

Juror 2: I don't think specifically.

The Court: Have other jurors commented?

Juror 2: I think I heard something.... (the judge interrrupted this juror when he was about to mention comments made by other jurors)

The Court: Okay. Did you ever hear juror number 5 say anything about him watching TV and watching TV reports about this trial? Did he ever say that in your presence?

Juror 2: Him -- himself watching?... No.
-----------------------------------------

The Court: Okay. Now, we received a report that juror number 5 in the jury room speaks about the facts and issues in this case. For example, there is a report that yesterday he commented about the anchor which was marked into evidence yesterday. Have you heard him make any comments about the anchor yesterday?

Juror 7: Yes, there was some conversation in the room about wishing that we had been able to handle the anchor, because there was maybe some interest in knowing how heavy it was.

The Court: Okay. Who made that comment? Was that juror number 5 or

6? Do you know?...

Juror 7: You know, I can't recall who said it first. There were several people that expressed an interest in the weight of it, the size of it. But I -- I can't tell you who said it first. I'm sorry.

The Court: Okay. Did you hear whether or not juror number 5 made any comments on Detective Brocchini's testimony? Did he make any comments about that?...

Juror 7: No.

The Court: Okay.... Have you heard him make any comments about Laci Peterson's weight during her pregnancy?

Juror 7: No.

The Court: Have you heard him make any comments about the Modesto Police Department reports?

Juror 7: No.

The Court: Any comments about the prosecution and the manner in which they're presenting this case?

Juror 7: No.

The Court: Any comments about him watching TV or talking to his girlfriend about TV reports?

Juror 7: Watching TV?

The Court: Court TV.

Juror 7: No.

The Court: Okay. Have you heard him say anything about this case in your presence?

Juror 7: I think the only thing I remember is what I heard yesterday about the anchor....

The Court: Have you ever heard any other juror in your presence admonish

juror number 5 not to be talking about the facts and issues in this case?

Juror 7: Well, I mean I have heard on occasion there would be maybe some conversation in the room and someone would go "Shh," and everybody would stop.

The Court: Okay. Was 5 among them that was making these comments? If you know.

Juror 7: I'm sorry, I -- I don't know.

[TopGunner]

IMO..Judge Delucchi was not interested in jury violations committed by others..he was just interested in juror #5 "Justin Falconer"...for example, he totally ignored what juror #2 was about to tell him ..the judge asked if he had heard other jurors commenting on the case, he replied that he thought he heard something, at that point the judge interruped him and asked another question in regards to juror #5....he didn't want to know if other jurors were breaking the rules...he also ignored what juror #7 told him about the fact that several jurors asked about the weight and the size of the anchor in the case, but he couldn't remember who those jurors were.. he also said, that on occasions, there would be a conversation going, and someone would go "shh" and everyone would stop..!!!!!!

Let me make something clear..it doesn't matter who initiated a discussion about the case...each juror that took part of a discussion about the case was also in violation of the rules..clearly there were several jurors discussing the case..Delucchi should have conducted a full investigation..in fact.. he should have declared a mistrial because it was obvious jury misconduct was widespread..


Quote:

The Court: Have you ever heard juror number 5, at least while you were in there, make any comments about the evidence in this case?

Juror 2: About the evidence?

The Court: For example, have you ever heard him say anything about the anchor which was marked into evidence yesterday?

Juror 2: No. Didn't hear any of that.

The Court: Okay. Have you heard any comments about Detective Brocchini's testimony by juror number 5?

Juror 2: No.

The Court: Have you heard any comment about Laci Peterson's weight during her pregnancy?

Juror 2: No.

The Court: Have you heard any comments on the Modesto Police Department reports by officers regarding their inconsistencies?

Juror 2: No.

The Court: Have you heard any comments about the prosecution and their deficiencies as lawyers to present this case?

Juror 2: From juror number 5?

The Court: Yeah.

Juror 2: I don't think specifically.

The Court: Have other jurors commented?

Juror 2: I think I heard something.... (the judge interrrupted this juror when he was about to mention comments made by other jurors)

The Court: Okay. Did you ever hear juror number 5 say anything about him watching TV and watching TV reports about this trial? Did he ever say that in your presence?

Juror 2: Him -- himself watching?... No.
-----------------------------------------

The Court: Okay. Now, we received a report that juror number 5 in the jury room speaks about the facts and issues in this case. For example, there is a report that yesterday he commented about the anchor which was marked into evidence yesterday. Have you heard him make any comments about the anchor yesterday?

Juror 7: Yes, there was some conversation in the room about wishing that we had been able to handle the anchor, because there was maybe some interest in knowing how heavy it was.

The Court: Okay. Who made that comment? Was that juror number 5 or

6? Do you know?...

Juror 7: You know, I can't recall who said it first. There were several people that expressed an interest in the weight of it, the size of it. But I -- I can't tell you who said it first. I'm sorry.

The Court: Okay. Did you hear whether or not juror number 5 made any comments on Detective Brocchini's testimony? Did he make any comments about that?...

Juror 7: No.

The Court: Okay.... Have you heard him make any comments about Laci Peterson's weight during her pregnancy?

Juror 7: No.

The Court: Have you heard him make any comments about the Modesto Police Department reports?

Juror 7: No.

The Court: Any comments about the prosecution and the manner in which they're presenting this case?

Juror 7: No.

The Court: Any comments about him watching TV or talking to his girlfriend about TV reports?

Juror 7: Watching TV?

The Court: Court TV.

Juror 7: No.

The Court: Okay. Have you heard him say anything about this case in your presence?

Juror 7: I think the only thing I remember is what I heard yesterday about the anchor....

The Court: Have you ever heard any other juror in your presence admonish

juror number 5 not to be talking about the facts and issues in this case?

Juror 7: Well, I mean I have heard on occasion there would be maybe some conversation in the room and someone would go "Shh," and everybody would stop.

The Court: Okay. Was 5 among them that was making these comments? If you know.

Juror 7: I'm sorry, I -- I don't know.

Aw2B

:biggrin: You're just jerking our chains now, aren't you? Do you REALLY think for a millimeter of a 1/4 of a second that a GUILTY convicted murderer has a chance to walk because Jackson *thinks* something, or *maybe* something? Because someone said "shh....", ROFLMAO!!!!:chicken:

[Wearing A Halo]

Excellent, excellent post Ang! But................mark my words. It'll all be repeated, again...and again....and again. (Beats uterus horns though!).
:biggrin:

Thanks TG. That is for sure it will be repeated again and again. It will be repeated again and again. !LOL!

[attorneywan2be]

Aw2B

:biggrin: You're just jerking our chains now, aren't you? Do you REALLY think for a millimeter of a 1/4 of a second that a GUILTY convicted murderer has a chance to walk because Jackson *thinks* something, or *maybe* something? Because someone said "shh....", ROFLMAO!!!!:chicken:

I respect the defendant's right to a fair trial..I guess that is the difference between me and you..the bottom line is the judge IGNORED that jurors were discussing the case before deliberations..he was only focusing on whether or not juror #5 took part of that discussion..

[Wearing A Halo]

I respect the defendant's right to a fair trial..I guess that is the difference between me and you..the bottom line is the judge IGNORED that jurors were discussing the case before deliberations..he was only focusing on whether or not juror #5 took part of that discussion..

JD did not ignore anyone or anything in regards to the jury.

It was juror #5 JF who didn't respect DRISP's right to a fair trial. He was the instigator and made himself the center of attention. JF already made up his mind very early into the trial and that is not only not fair to DRISP, but not right. JF was basking in his dismissal with interviews and his website and peddling bracelets. You, AW2B, must have a beef with JF for not taking his civic duty as an honest juror seriously. So go take it out on him. Do the same with 'nervous breakdown' GJ. JD did the right thing in his rulings in removing jurors who could not abide with the jury instructions.

[TopGunner]

I respect the defendant's right to a fair trial..I guess that is the difference between me and you..the bottom line is the judge IGNORED that jurors were discussing the case before deliberations..he was only focusing on whether or not juror #5 took part of that discussion..

You are correct AW2B, I respect nothing about the defendant.

You are incorrect to ASSUME the jurors were discussing the case before deliberations. There is absolutely NO PROOF that they were, just one nit wit's babbling, implying, who knows what.
:no:

[Lavindar]

Excellent, excellent post Ang! But................mark my words. It'll all be repeated, again...and again....and again. (Beats uterus horns though!).
:biggrin:


ROFLMAO - you mean the uterine horns that were NOT mentioned in testimony? The uterine horns that the poster obviously threw into the discussion ajust like the coffe cup on the counter (that did not match Laci's dishes)? The coffee cup that Scott saw there and never mentioned as something out of place? Or maybe it's the red boots by the front door which were never seen by anyone but a poster on this board who has never been to the house on Covena.

[Lavindar]

I respect the defendant's right to a fair trial..I guess that is the difference between me and you..the bottom line is the judge IGNORED that jurors were discussing the case before deliberations..he was only focusing on whether or not juror #5 took part of that discussion..

I guess you don't feel that it's unfair for a juror to bring in things not in evidence either. Your precious JD/MD did that also.

[attorneywan2be]

I guess you don't feel that it's unfair for a juror to bring in things not in evidence either. Your precious JD/MD did that also.

What are you talking about? are you saying that juror #5 Gregory Jackson brought things not in evidence?? please post a link or the TS ....thanks

[TopGunner]

What are you talking about? are you saying that juror #5 Gregory Jackson brought things not in evidence?? please post a link or the TS ....thanks

Does JD/MD stand for GJ?

:biggrin:

[Lili007]

GOing back to what Scott said he did that morning... he did indeed coin another word for the English dictionary, and also invented an interesting "sport", not to mention a very novel alibi...golfishing.

I imagine it would be much harder to take the boat on to the golf course to fish for sturgeon (or anything else for that matter), so he decided to take the boat to the water, but he didn't take his golf clubs. Heck of a trick to golf a ball out of SF Bay, though. So just maybe he had something else in mind. :biggrin:

So it's just a coincidence that Laci and Conner's bodies washed out where he went "fishing" without his golf clubs, instead of being found on the golf course with his boat or fishing gear nearby.

This is not meant to be funny in any way - it's just meant to illustrate what a dumb dork he was when he tried to cover up, IMO. Not to mention what a despicable, cowardly and horrible murder he committed against the most vulnerable, and his very own - pregnant wife and about-to-be-born baby. IMO, it takes pure evil and boundless selfisness to even contemplate that, let alone do it.

JMO

[Otter]

Lili said:

This is not meant to be funny in any way - it's just meant to illustrate what a dumb dork he was when he tried to cover up, IMO. Not to mention what a despicable, cowardly and horrible murder he committed against the most vulnerable, and his very own - pregnant wife and about-to-be-born baby. IMO, it takes pure evil and boundless selfisness to even contemplate that, let alone do it.

Lili's post is exactly what I've thought all these years but I could never put it that succinctly in my own head. He thought no one would pay attention because of the holidays; and he was smarter than everyone. It would blow over. Everyone would forget about Laci -- he sure did.

Thank you Lili! You brought me back to what counts.

This post brings home why, no matter what excuses put forth by his apologists, will not make my mind be open. One solid piece of something, anything, might make me listen, if one would be proffered.

I've heard the ridiculous, the wishful and the tortured, twisted legal excuses. Nothing that makes one lick of sense. And until he meets my God, he'll be in his little cage.

MOO.

[Lili007]

Lili said:



Lili's post is exactly what I've thought all these years but I could never put it that succinctly in my own head. He thought no one would pay attention because of the holidays; and he was smarter than everyone. It would blow over. Everyone would forget about Laci -- he sure did.

Thank you Lili! You brought me back to what counts.

This post brings home why, no matter what excuses put forth by his apologists, will not make my mind be open. One solid piece of something, anything, might make me listen, if one would be proffered.

I've heard the ridiculous, the wishful and the tortured, twisted legal excuses. Nothing that makes one lick of sense. And until he meets my God, he'll be in his little cage.

MOO.

Otter, you're very welcome. I only said what I believe to be true. His story, such as it was, never made any sense and his defense counsel couldn't do anything about making it even sound any different.

IMO, that's not incompentent defense, as they might claim in an appeal, it's just a guilty client that no defense can help. He shot himself in the foot, so to speak, and thank goodness for that. Otherwise, another woman and baby murderer might have gone free.

JMO

[Otter]

Otter, you're very welcome. I only said what I believe to be true. His story, such as it was, never made any sense and his defense counsel couldn't do anything about making it even sound any different.

IMO, that's not incompentent defense, as they might claim in an appeal, it's just a guilty client that no defense can help. He shot himself in the foot, so to speak, and thank goodness for that. Otherwise, another woman and baby murderer might have gone free.

JMO

Absolutely! The apologists (MG included) are stymied by the facts. We read people who post anonymously on a message board about all sorts of nonsense. What's odd is MG, his advocate, regurgitated the same nonsense!

Lol, he started it, so I guess I should rephrase -- they're regurgitating and taking it as gospel.

UGH! Why someone like DRISP? What makes his so special to latch your star to? A double murderer on DR...yeah, what a guy. So ... is he "cute" ? Blech! That's all I can think of, there's nothing else there!

MOO.

[Lili007]

Absolutely! The apologists (MG included) are stymied by the facts. We read people who post anonymously on a message board about all sorts of nonsense. What's odd is MG, his advocate, regurgitated the same nonsense!

Lol, he started it, so I guess I should rephrase -- they're regurgitating and taking it as gospel.

UGH! Why someone like DRISP? What makes his so special to latch your star to? A double murderer on DR...yeah, what a guy. So ... is he "cute" ? Blech! That's all I can think of, there's nothing else there!

MOO.

Yeah, I know what you're saying and I totally agree....

I suppose he had his stage of "cute" that he cultivated for the courtroom. You know - the smirky smiles, the serious poses... but he was never able to carry through the grief pose, was he? No wonder - I don't think he had any. IMO.

Even in court he couldn't help himself from flirting with anyone in a skirt. That's his problem. His other very huge problem is that he killed his wife and baby, IMO.

JMO

[Otter]

Yeah, I know what you're saying and I totally agree....

I suppose he had his stage of "cute" that he cultivated for the courtroom. You know - the smirky smiles, the serious poses... he was never able to carry through the grief pose, was he? No wonder - I don't think he had any. IMO.

Even in court he couldn't help himself from flirting with anyone in a skirt. That's his problem. His other very huge problem is that he killed his wife and baby, IMO.

JMO

UGH! The tears! All those fake tears. And he showed his true self taking through them.

IIRC, he spent extra time in the intake area (whatever its called) because he was so trying to manipulate any female there ... medical, guard, doc, didn't matter to him. Charming them. Didn't work in prison, more's the pity. Not.

[PsychNurse;~)]

[QUOTE=sunbeam;9047672]That's your evidence- the hair? My husband has called me from work saying he's found my hair on his things at work, and that's no lie. He's called from work just to tell me he just found my hair on him or on his things. Good thing I'm still alive huh? That being actual evidence of murder is actually humorous.QUOTE]

SNIPPED

if your husband's called you from work to inform you he found one of your hairs on him, i can only imagine what type of scintillating conversations ya'll have.

:tongue:

omg honey, i found one of your hairs on my jacket......

omg honey, i found another of your hairs on my chair.......

(yeah, that's all really believable, NOT!)

~~cyn~~

[PsychNurse;~)]

How can you possibly state that Sunbeam is "absolutely right" when she states the "jurors were dismissed because they believed Scott was innocent"? The three were dismissed for very specific reasons. Falconer because he talked to people he shouldn't have in the very short time he sat on the jury. The female (can't remember her name) because she did a search on the internet which was a big no-no. Last but not least Jackson, the Dr./Lawyer, who requested to be dismissed on at least two occasions. I'm sure the reason(s) he was removed is in the court records. JMO


the female juror who was removed for doing the internet search stated in her interview (prior to knowing she was gagged) that she believed drisp was guilty.

~~cyn~~

[Invrdv8]

the female juror who was removed for doing the internet search stated in her interview (prior to knowing she was gagged) that she believed drisp was guilty.

~~cyn~~

Well, guess that blows AW2B's theory all to heck then, doesn't it??? I thought I read that the woman was leaning toward guilty, but couldn't remember where. Thanks for the info. Falconer wasn't on the jury long enough to hear all the evidence so when he was dismissed he should have kept his mouth shut. I could have had a lot more respect for him if, when asked, he had said, "I haven't heard all the evidence so I have no comment at this time". He got more than he bargained for when he started giving all those interviews. Of course, he himself said he stopped doing the interviews when they stopped offering him money and only offered him "things". He used to post on the SII board until I believe MN decided it was best that he went elsewhere. He was one cocky, blowhard! JMO

[Invrdv8]

[QUOTE=sunbeam;9047672]That's your evidence- the hair? My husband has called me from work saying he's found my hair on his things at work, and that's no lie. He's called from work just to tell me he just found my hair on him or on his things. Good thing I'm still alive huh? That being actual evidence of murder is actually humorous.QUOTE]

SNIPPED

if your husband's called you from work to inform you he found one of your hairs on him, i can only imagine what type of scintillating conversations ya'll have.

:tongue:

omg honey, i found one of your hairs on my jacket......

omg honey, i found another of your hairs on my chair.......

(yeah, that's all really believable, NOT!)

~~cyn~~

How about:

omg honey, maybe it's time to spring for some ROGAIN!!!!;)

[Invrdv8]

Yeah, I know what you're saying and I totally agree....

I suppose he had his stage of "cute" that he cultivated for the courtroom. You know - the smirky smiles, the serious poses... but he was never able to carry through the grief pose, was he? No wonder - I don't think he had any. IMO.

Even in court he couldn't help himself from flirting with anyone in a skirt. That's his problem. His other very huge problem is that he killed his wife and baby, IMO.

JMO

I have to say I think Scott was a nice looking guy. Trouble is what's on the outside is no indication of what's on the inside. The "smirks" and cocky attitude were an absolute turn off. He's a perfect example of "what you see, is NOT always what you get"! I know it was reported that he was flirting with the female guards at SQ and I don't think they wear skirts. LOL Who did he flirt with in court?

[Lavindar]

Does JD/MD stand for GJ?

:biggrin: Ye s,

Jackson tried to bring his doctor bacground into the case, and that's not allowed. The jury had to go on the TESTIMONY, not on things that Jackson felt should have been included inthe case.

He (Jackson) was, in essence, playing by his own rules because of his educaion and training. R

Jackson kept going into things that weren't there (in March's tesitimony) and disputing things that were.

When told to deal with what March said, not your opinion of what he said, Jackson "couldn't take the heat."

p. 145, We the Jury

[Lavindar]

JD did not ignore anyone or anything in regards to the jury.

It was juror #5 JF who didn't respect DRISP's right to a fair trial. He was the instigator and made himself the center of attention. JF already made up his mind very early into the trial and that is not only not fair to DRISP, but not right. JF was basking in his dismissal with interviews and his website and peddling bracelets. You, AW2B, must have a beef with JF for not taking his civic duty as an honest juror seriously. So go take it out on him. Do the same with 'nervous breakdown' GJ. JD did the right thing in his rulings in removing jurors who could not abide with the jury instructions.



AW2B, if you want to ressurect Justin Falconer, just look at his track record AFTER his dismissal. He couldn't wait to get his ugly mug on TV and spout how he KNEW Scott was innocent. He didn't even hear all the testimony.

Do you forget that he was a "disabled" airport security worker who claimed to be in school to be a police officer? Wouldn't happen with his disability. I would seriously fear for anyh police force who would hire a man like JF. No one would ever be arrested for anything. JF is an idiot, who just wanted his 15 minutes of fame and he proved that multiple times. No one ever took him seriously. He talked all the time and said over and over again that he KNEW Scott was innocent without hearing all the testimony.

He talked about the case with his girl friend. He talked to anyone who would listen. He claimed to be buddy-buddy with the fireman. I am trying ro figure out how he even got on the jury.

[Invrdv8]

AW2B, if you want to ressurect Justin Falconer, just look at his track record AFTER his dismissal. He couldn't wait to get his ugly mug on TV and spout how he KNEW Scott was innocent. He didn't even hear all the testimony.

Do you forget that he was a "disabled" airport security worker who claimed to be in school to be a police officer? Wouldn't happen with his disability. I would seriously fear for anyh police force who would hire a man like JF. No one would ever be arrested for anything. JF is an idiot, who just wanted his 15 minutes of fame and he proved that multiple times. No one ever took him seriously. He talked all the time and said over and over again that he KNEW Scott was innocent without hearing all the testimony.

He talked about the case with his girl friend. He talked to anyone who would listen. He claimed to be buddy-buddy with the fireman. I am trying ro figure out how he even got on the jury.

I can't remember what state Falconer fled to when his mouth got him in hot water, but he supposedly entered the Police Academy and later made the police force. On SII he was asked how he ever passed the physical ability tests and his response was that the academy made acceptions for him during those tests. He said they were confident that he could perform if and when it ever became necessary. What police officer would ever want to be partnered up with him? I'd sure want to know my partner was capable of taking my back if I ever got into trouble out on the beat. It's my opinion he was just blowing smoke and is probably a security guard somewhere.

I believe just the opposite. IMO if he did in fact get on a police force somewhere he would have thrown his weight around. He would have made arrests for anything and everything. I think his attitude would have been "I'm a cop so don't mess with me". I have a nephew that wanted to be a cop just so he could carry a gun!:shrug:

[Lavindar]

I can't remember what state Falconer fled to when his mouth got him in hot water, but he supposedly entered the Police Academy and later made the police force. On SII he was asked how he ever passed the physical ability tests and his response was that the academy made acceptions for him during those tests. He said they were confident that he could perform if and when it ever became necessary. What police officer would ever want to be partnered up with him? I'd sure want to know my partner was capable of taking my back if I ever got into trouble out on the beat. It's my opinion he was just blowing smoke and is probably a security guard somewhere.

I believe just the opposite. IMO if he did in fact get on a police force somewhere he would have thrown his weight around. He would have made arrests for anything and everything. I think his attitude would have been "I'm a cop so don't mess with me". I have a nephew that wanted to be a cop just so he could carry a gun!:shrug:


From experience. I used to procter the physical agility tests for police and fire and they DO NOT MAKE EXCEPTIONS to the physical requirements. When you think that someone's life might depend on their agility, it's not something that can be compromised. Making exceptions would lead to law suits. He's a cop wanna-be. You see them everywhere, usually as security guards somewhere. I don't think he was stable enough mentally to pass the psychological tests either. Cops hate bad cops and I think Justin Falconer would have been the worst cop around. He thought he knew everything and his goal was to be Scott's buddy imo.

[Invrdv8]

Ye s,

Jackson tried to bring his doctor bacground into the case, and that's not allowed. The jury had to go on the TESTIMONY, not on things that Jackson felt should have been included inthe case.

He (Jackson) was, in essence, playing by his own rules because of his educaion and training. R

Jackson kept going into things that weren't there (in March's tesitimony) and disputing things that were.

When told to deal with what March said, not your opinion of what he said, Jackson "couldn't take the heat."

p. 145, We the Jury

Do you happen to know in what areas Jackson practiced as a Dr./Lawyer? I believe I read somewhere he was not a medical Dr. nor a criminal lawyer. I think because he carried the titles of Dr./Lawyer that he thought he was intellectually superior to the other jurors and "how dare them object to or question" his authority. When he found out the other jurors were going to speak up he wimped out.

[Lavindar]

Do you happen to know in what areas Jackson practiced as a Dr./Lawyer? I believe I read somewhere he was not a medical Dr. nor a criminal lawyer. I think because he carried the titles of Dr./Lawyer that he thought he was intellectually superior to the other jurors and "how dare them object to or question" his authority. When he found out the other jurors were going to speak up he wimped out.
I believe his expertise was in research. No one ever said (that I recall) that he was an MD. He could have been an PhD. He certainly was no expert in fetal development, nor was March. March's specialty was infertility. Devore was the fetal development expert and March testified that he also used Devore when needed in his practice.


So much for the people discounting Devore's testimony. Even March admitted in testimony rhat he referred patients to Devore

[Invrdv8]

From experience. I used to procter the physical agility tests for police and fire and they DO NOT MAKE EXCEPTIONS to the physical requirements. When you think that someone's life might depend on their agility, it's not something that can be compromised. Making exceptions would lead to law suits. He's a cop wanna-be. You see them everywhere, usually as security guards somewhere. I don't think he was stable enough mentally to pass the psychological tests either. Cops hate bad cops and I think Justin Falconer would have been the worst cop around. He thought he knew everything and his goal was to be Scott's buddy imo.

I somehow got the impression that the force he said he was on was not a big city police force. Could it be that a small town force might make acceptions if they were hard pressed to fill positions on their force? It didn't make sense to me. Either you make the grade in the academy, no acceptions, or you don't make the force! ITA he would have made the worst cop ever! BTW, my nephew is a security guard! LOL

[Wearing A Halo]

I can't remember what state Falconer fled to when his mouth got him in hot water, but he supposedly entered the Police Academy and later made the police force. On SII he was asked how he ever passed the physical ability tests and his response was that the academy made acceptions for him during those tests. He said they were confident that he could perform if and when it ever became necessary. What police officer would ever want to be partnered up with him? I'd sure want to know my partner was capable of taking my back if I ever got into trouble out on the beat. It's my opinion he was just blowing smoke and is probably a security guard somewhere.

I believe just the opposite. IMO if he did in fact get on a police force somewhere he would have thrown his weight around. He would have made arrests for anything and everything. I think his attitude would have been "I'm a cop so don't mess with me". I have a nephew that wanted to be a cop just so he could carry a gun!:shrug:

Hi Invrdv8,

He fled to Kansas City, MO.

[Lavindar]

Hi Invrdv8,

He fled to Kansas City, MO.Thanks WAH. I was going to say somewhere in teh Midwest, but wasn't sure of exact location. Ca's gain is their loss roflmao

[Wearing A Halo]

Thanks WAH. I was going to say somewhere in teh Midwest, but wasn't sure of exact location. Ca's gain is their loss roflmao

You're welcome Lavindar.

:patriot:

[Invrdv8]

Hi Invrdv8,

He fled to Kansas City, MO.

Hi WAH,

Thanks, I thought it was somewhere back east.

[Wearing A Halo]

Hi WAH,

Thanks, I thought it was somewhere back east.

You're welcome Invrdv8.

[adnoid]

IMO..Judge Delucchi was not interested in jury violations committed by others..he was just interested in juror #5 "Justin Falconer"...

OEOAATTWWBB

OMG, GMAB. YASW. IYWRIWAGY. JF (MDSO) WZ PWNED. HBTBO.

[deputydi]

IMO

I believe that judge Delucchi dismissed jurors that would have caused a hung jury..in this case those jurors were for "not guilty"..for example, it was all over the news that Justin Falconer was pro-defense..Delucchi removed him..also Gregory Jackson told the judge that he was concerned about his safey due to comments made to him by other jurors...that gave Delucchi this message--->if Gregory would stay it would be a hung jury..so he removed him without full investigation..he should have declared a mistrial...had Jackson stayed it would have been a hung jury Guinasso told the media..
On the other hand, serious violations by other jurors were ignored..he was very selective in his appilcation of the law depending on which juror violated the jury instructions.
Just what do you suppose his motivation was for "stacking" the jury? The man was RETIRED and didn't have to worry about public opinion. Why on earth would he risk his superior reputation for a nobody like Scott Peterson? The full, official reason Jackson was dismissed has not been made public and that's his right. Others on the jury have said that Jackson refused to deliberate and sat by himself with his arms crossed. Refusal to deliberate is definitely a reason for dismissal. All three jurors were removed because they would not follow the rules. I don't know where you are getting the information that OTHER JURORS made serious violations that were ignored.

Yes, if Jackson had stayed it probably would have ended in a hung jury. There are only two kinds of votes that count -- Guilty or Not Guilty. Since Jackson refused to participate, my guess is he would have refused to vote. No one knows what his vote would have been and all of this is pure speculation. One of the complaints was that, as foreman, he refused to allow the other jurors to take an initial vote to see where everyone stood at that point. He insisted on going through every bit of testimony BEFORE taking a vote. Since the other jurors wouldn't do it HIS way, he pouted like a little child and asked to be removed.

[Invrdv8]

Just what do you suppose his motivation was for "stacking" the jury? The man was RETIRED and didn't have to worry about public opinion. Why on earth would he risk his superior reputation for a nobody like Scott Peterson? The full, official reason Jackson was dismissed has not been made public and that's his right. Others on the jury have said that Jackson refused to deliberate and sat by himself with his arms crossed. Refusal to deliberate is definitely a reason for dismissal. All three jurors were removed because they would not follow the rules. I don't know where you are getting the information that OTHER JURORS made serious violations that were ignored.

Yes, if Jackson had stayed it probably would have ended in a hung jury. There are only two kinds of votes that count -- Guilty or Not Guilty. Since Jackson refused to participate, my guess is he would have refused to vote. No one knows what his vote would have been and all of this is pure speculation. One of the complaints was that, as foreman, he refused to allow the other jurors to take an initial vote to see where everyone stood at that point. He insisted on going through every bit of testimony BEFORE taking a vote. Since the other jurors wouldn't do it HIS way, he pouted like a little child and asked to be removed.

I've never served on a jury so I'm not quite sure exactly what the jury foremans responsibilities are but I'm almost positive he/she's not there to take control of the deliberations and insist that all the jurors do it his/her way. Common sense tells you the jurors are there to work together in an effort to hopefully come up with one verdict they can all agree on. IMO the foremans job would be to keep the deliberations on track and running smoothly.

I don't think Jackson was used to having his authority challenged and didn't know how to react when the other jurors objected to him just "taking over".

[enlightenme]

Just what do you suppose his motivation was for "stacking" the jury? The man was RETIRED and didn't have to worry about public opinion. Why on earth would he risk his superior reputation for a nobody like Scott Peterson? The full, official reason Jackson was dismissed has not been made public and that's his right. Others on the jury have said that Jackson refused to deliberate and sat by himself with his arms crossed. Refusal to deliberate is definitely a reason for dismissal. All three jurors were removed because they would not follow the rules. I don't know where you are getting the information that OTHER JURORS made serious violations that were ignored.

Yes, if Jackson had stayed it probably would have ended in a hung jury. There are only two kinds of votes that count -- Guilty or Not Guilty. Since Jackson refused to participate, my guess is he would have refused to vote. No one knows what his vote would have been and all of this is pure speculation. One of the complaints was that, as foreman, he refused to allow the other jurors to take an initial vote to see where everyone stood at that point. He insisted on going through every bit of testimony BEFORE taking a vote. Since the other jurors wouldn't do it HIS way, he pouted like a little child and asked to be removed.


It was also said that he talked a lot and tended not to remember much. Probably too much writing in those notebooks to pay attention.

He was the reason they came up with the 5 or 10 minutes (can't remember which is was right now) time allotment for jurors to talk at one time.

He was NEVER interviewed so it's pure speculation and conjecture on the NGs part that he would have voted not guilty.

A long time ago an NG thought that GJ was keeping a low profile, helping Geragos with Scott's appeal. LOL! Geragos has totally washed his hands of Scott Peterson. He NEVER mentions that case on the rare occasions he still speaks on TV.

The other day, I think it was on Jamie's show, they were talking about celebrities who do not get convicted in CA. The host said, "And someone who THOUGHT he was a celebrity, but wasn't, was Scott Peterson. (shows video of his mug.) He had the famous lawyer with the sunglasses but the jury just saw a smug jerk who killed his wife, not a celebrity."

LOLLOLLOL!

[Lavindar]

It was also said that he talked a lot and tended not to remember much. Probably too much writing in those notebooks to pay attention.

He was the reason they came up with the 5 or 10 minutes (can't remember which is was right now) time allotment for jurors to talk at one time.

He was NEVER interviewed so it's pure speculation and conjecture on the NGs part that he would have voted not guilty.

A long time ago an NG thought that GJ was keeping a low profile, helping Geragos with Scott's appeal. LOL! Geragos has totally washed his hands of Scott Peterson. He NEVER mentions that case on the rare occasions he still speaks on TV.

The other day, I think it was on Jamie's show, they were talking about celebrities who do not get convicted in CA. The host said, "And someone who THOUGHT he was a celebrity, but wasn't, was Scott Peterson. (shows video of his mug.) He had the famous lawyer with the sunglasses but the jury just saw a smug jerk who killed his wife, not a celebrity."

LOLLOLLOL!

I agree with your note-taking scenario. I remember less in a class where I took notes, than in the ones wehre I concentrated on what was being said.

I believe the time limite rule was agreed upon yet GJ refused to abide by it. He insisted on trying to save March's testimony also. You have to accept what the testimony is, not try to embellish it - that's why Gorman was dismissed - she was looking up something on the internet

[cookiewench]

I somehow got the impression that the force he said he was on was not a big city police force. Could it be that a small town force might make acceptions if they were hard pressed to fill positions on their force? It didn't make sense to me. Either you make the grade in the academy, no acceptions, or you don't make the force! ITA he would have made the worst cop ever! BTW, my nephew is a security guard! LOL

It's also quite possible that his claim of injury or disability was bogus, but when asked about it publicly he had to keep pretending, or someone could have reported him for frau, for collecting Workman's Comp or disability or whatever it was he collected.

[Invrdv8]

It's also quite possible that his claim of injury or disability was bogus, but when asked about it publicly he had to keep pretending, or someone could have reported him for frau, for collecting Workman's Comp or disability or whatever it was he collected.

IIRC it was reported that he was an airport security screener and supposedly injured his knee on the job. What I want to know is how could the duties of a security screener possibly result in a knee injury. If he was injured on the job he was probably collecting Workman's Comp. If he wasn't able to work because of his "disability" I wonder how he was able to join a police academy? Wouldn't you think he'd have to be physically fit before being accepted?

JMO

[Lavindar]

IIRC it was reported that he was an airport security screener and supposedly injured his knee on the job. What I want to know is how could the duties of a security screener possibly result in a knee injury. If he was injured on the job he was probably collecting Workman's Comp. If he wasn't able to work because of his "disability" I wonder how he was able to join a police academy? Wouldn't you think he'd have to be physically fit before being accepted?

JMO
My memory is not so good, but I think he "tripped" over one of those rubber things that cover up cords.

Two of the things that washed women out on the physical was scaling a 6 ft wall and running a mile in a certain time limit. Those things a police force cannot afford to make exceptions for. Those are things that cops need to do on a regular basis. I can't remember much else as those were the only two I was rotated to. I would venture a guess that someone with a knee injury wouldn't be able to do either one of those. (Those were also the two that washed most men out on the physical)