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

[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!!

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!!

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.

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!!

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.

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. I'm flattered.

[margaritaville]

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

[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. I'm flattered.

Don't flatter yourself too much. 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?

[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. 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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

JMO

[Lili007]

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

[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.

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.

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.

[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.....

[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.....

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

[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.

Hi Sunbeam...