Mistakes Made By the Defense

[thinkaboutit]

Just for you A2ME!

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

[accordn2me]

I'm honored!

I'll go first.

Mistakes made by the defense:

1. Taking the case.

[frydaddy]

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

[deputydi]

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

[frydaddy]

Originally Posted by deputydi

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

Good call Di!

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

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

Mark Geragos, Larry King Live, April 18, 2003

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

Mark Geragos, opening statement, June 2, 2004

[frydaddy]

Originally Posted by frydaddy

Good call Di!

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

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

Mark Geragos, Larry King Live, April 18, 2003

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

Mark Geragos, opening statement, June 2, 2004

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

Mark Geragos, CNN Live, May 5, 2003

[frydaddy]

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

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

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by frydaddy

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

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

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

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

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

[JustMyOpinion]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[accordn2me]

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

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

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

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by accordn2me

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

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

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

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

IMO

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by frydaddy

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

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

Yes. I had forgotten that disgusting attempt at humor.

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

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

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by Hey Paula

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

IMO

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

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by deputydi

Yes. I had forgotten that disgusting attempt at humor.

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

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

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

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by Hey Paula

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

IMO

I agree with you !

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

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

IMO

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by Hey Paula

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

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

Hey, Paula

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

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

Originally Posted by deputydi

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

Hi Dep!

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

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

Originally Posted by accordn2me

Hey, Paula

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

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

Hi A2M!

ITA!

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

IMO

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by Hey Paula

Hi A2M!

ITA!

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

IMO

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

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

Originally Posted by accordn2me

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

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

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

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

In Memory of your Mom

For you, from me!

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by Hey Paula

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

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

In Memory of your Mom

For you, from me!

Hey Paula, Thank you for your kind words and the roses.

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

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

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

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

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

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

[frydaddy]

Originally Posted by deputydi

Yes. I had forgotten that disgusting attempt at humor.

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

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

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

[frydaddy]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

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

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

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

Originally Posted by frydaddy

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

Good Morning Frydaddy and Everyone!

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

1) exude an air of confidence

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

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

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

IMO

[accordn2me]

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

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

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

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

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

IMO

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by Hey Paula

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

IMO

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

Originally Posted by deputydi

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

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

IMO

[accordn2me]

One2Snoop, TopGunner, Thank you both.

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

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

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

[frydaddy]

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

[enlightenme]

Originally Posted by frydaddy

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

You're right, huge!

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

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

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by frydaddy

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

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

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by Hey Paula

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

IMO

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

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by deputydi

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

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

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by JustMyOpinion

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

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

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

Originally Posted by deputydi

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

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

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

IMO