Scott Peterson Wants To Appeal Conviction

[Anakerie]

Family Seeks Donations For Investigation Costs

SAN FRANCISCO -- The man convicted of killing Laci Peterson is moving forward with an appeal of his murder conviction, according to a family blog.

Scott Peterson's family said it still needs $95,000 to help cover the costs of the investigation and is asking the public to help contribute.

(More at the link)
http://www.kcra.com/news/20067441/detail.html

I was surprised to see this plea for donations on my evening news tonight... :glare:

I hope I stuck this thread in the right place....

[LisaM22]

it's his right and if he is not guilty I wish him luck, the trial had lot of grounds for appeal, so a new trial should be granted, I hope in the end, justice is done, guilty or not guilty

[Tracian]

I thought with a death case, it is automatically up for appeal. Richard Allen Davis had an appeal heard, and I doubt he hired a lawyer, but he had one.

[LisaM22]

I thought with a death case, it is automatically up for appeal. Richard Allen Davis had an appeal heard, and I doubt he hired a lawyer, but he had one.

they do not cover the costs of the investigations, if you are innocent, you still have to pay for the dna test or whatever to prove it if such evidence exists for example, unless the prosecutor decides they want to do it, which most do not, cause they do not want to risk being wrong - jmh

[Lady_Jean_La]

I thought with a death case, it is automatically up for appeal. Richard Allen Davis had an appeal heard, and I doubt he hired a lawyer, but he had one.
There are several, almost endless appeals. It is very difficult to get out of an appeal. Most on California's death row die before they are executed. imo

[barskin&co.]

SP wants to "appeal his conviction." Oh, I see; this is unlike all the other convicted murderers who just say, "Oh well, you got me fair and square. That's all you hear from me." Of course, he wants to appeal. This, IMO, is not news. This was inevitable. Now, all he has to do is actually win an appeal! I don't think he can.

[barskin&co.]

There are several, almost endless appeals. It is very difficult to get out of an appeal. Most on California's death row die before they are executed. imo

Well, you've got that right, Lady J! And he will go for endless appeals (look at Jeffrey MacDonald- that creep has been at it for decades). What else does he have to do with his time? Work on his golf swing? :laugh:

[♫Rock*Star♫]

snipped

Most on California's death row die before they are executed. imo

Oh. Good.

So its a win-win. :thumbup:

[LisaM22]

But Scott isn't innocent. He was found guilty and the appeal is automatic. The state is paying for their lawyer. They want money to hire an investigator. They have asked for money multiple times. Why do they keep asking? In all this time they couldn't come up with $95,000? I've read on their blog that people have already donated. Where is that money and what was done with it? Wouldn't you want to know what is being done with your donation? They never say. That to me raises a whole lot of red flags.

MOO

the fact that he was found guilty no more means he is not innocent then it would mean he was innocent if he was found not guilty, it just means 12 people thought he was guilty

sometimes inmates have no victims, sometimes they are the victims...

http://www.forejustice.org/wc/ray_krone_JD_vol2_i9.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/25/dna.prisonrelease.ap/

[♫Rock*Star♫]

snipped

sometimes inmates have no victims, sometimes they are the victims...


Not this time.

Scott Peterson's victims are Laci & Connor. And every one of Laci's family & friends.

Scott Peterson chose to victimize. Scott Peterson chose murder.

And he's paying the cost. Rightfully so.

[LisaM22]

Please, you are making me laugh. Absolutely no logic to that thinking. Did you follow the case at all? Doesn't sound like it one bit. Had you followed it you would know there was DNA so no he won't be getting out based on the cnn link. Forget that.
<snip>

MOO

:laugh:

really who's dna was at the scene where she was killed? unfortunately in this case there was no DNA that pointed to the true killer, and it's not even known where or how she was killed

I think sp looks like the most likely suspect, but I in no way think it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and definitely not to the higher degree required for the DP, I would like to see another trial, I would like to be convinced one way or the other of his guilt or innocents

[Details]

The case, and the trial, are nice and solid. But if people want to waste their money - what can you do.

She vanished from her house right at the same time as he left - due to the dog, and his statements about what is on TV, the window is incredibly tight. He went fishing on a boat no one knew he had, that he'd never registered, with a fishing permit he'd gotten a few days ago, at a bay quite aways away not well suited for that boat, passing many better choices. When the search moved to there, he went and watched the search - an innocent man wouldn't have bothered to watch a search the one place he could know she wasn't.

They had more than enough evidence, and no grounds for an appeal.

DNA isn't always present - frequently is not present - nor is it required for a conviction.

[♫Rock*Star♫]

really who's dna was at the scene where she was killed? unfortunately in this case there was no DNA that pointed to the true killer, and it's not even known where or how she was killed

I think sp looks like the most likely suspect, but I in no way think it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and definitely not to the higher degree required for the DP, I would like to see another trial, I would like to be convinced one way or the other of his guilt or innocents

What you think is of no consequence. Scott Peterson was proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be the murderer that he truly is. The 'true killer' of Laci & Connor. Convicted. Rightfully so.

What 'higher degree required for the death penalty' do you speak of?

I suggest you compare the definitions of 'reasonable' & 'unreasonable.'


ITA and he's not paying enough, MOO.

:mad:

True that, Zumba.

True that.

[LisaM22]

I sugges you brush up on the case. You'll find out just how much you may have missed. Come back after that. By the way, make sure the transcripts are the real ones not altered by Scott's number one fan.

It doesn't matter what you think in all seriousness. Where you on the Jury? NO

It was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Why do you think he was sent to Death Row?

MOO

just post a link to your claims about the dna of the killer being used to prove his guilt, I think it is you that needs to read up on the case and not let your emotions blind you from the truth

[LisaM22]

What you think is of no consequence. Scott Peterson was proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be the murderer that he truly is. The 'true killer' of Laci & Connor. Convicted. Rightfully so.

What 'higher degree required for the death penalty' do you speak of?

I suggest you compare the definitions of 'reasonable' & 'unreasonable.'




True that, Zumba.

True that.

i am more interested in finding out the truth no mater which way it points then making up stuff so that I feel better about wishing someone dead

try to do some research on the DP and you will see it requires a higher degree of certainty then beyond a reasonable doubt, did you really not know that? did you watch the sentencing in this trial? the judge discussed it

[LisaM22]

Unreasonable thinking that there had to be a higher degree that would require the DP. Murdering two people isn't high enough to some I guess.

:rolleyes:


MOO

guess you do not understand the law, you have to be certain to a higher degree then beyond a reasonable doubt to order someone be put to death

[♫Rock*Star♫]

i am more interested in finding out the truth no mater which way it points then making up stuff so that I feel better about wishing someone dead

try to do some research on the DP and you will see it requires a higher degree of certainty then beyond a reasonable doubt, did you really not know that? did you watch the sentencing in this trial? the judge discussed it

Of course I knew that. ;)

I wanted to see you type it out yourself. Thank you. :cool:

And now that you typed it out yourself... maybe you will come to realize Scott Peterson was found guilty of Laci's murder & Connor's murder, beyond a reasonable doubt & to a higher degree of certainty than 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

See what I did there? :thumbup:

[♫Rock*Star♫]

guess you do not understand the law, you have to be certain to a higher degree then beyond a reasonable doubt to order someone be put to death

Guess you do not understand this case.

Scott Peterson is on Death Row. Ordered there.

Which means... see my previous post. ;)

[LisaM22]

Of course I knew that. ;)

I wanted to see you type it out yourself. Thank you. :cool:

And now that you typed it out yourself... maybe you will come to realize Scott Peterson was found guilty of Laci's murder & Connor's murder, beyond a reasonable doubt & to a higher degree of certainty than 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

See what I did there? :thumbup:

you did nothing, you only showed us that 12 people thought that, do you think OJ, MJ and RB were innocent? 12 people voted not guilty

and thanks for admitting your just playing games

[LisaM22]

Guess you do not understand this case.

Scott Peterson is on Death Row. Ordered there.

Which means... see my previous post. ;)

doesn't mean they are guilty - found guilty by TWO juries and STILL innocent

http://www.forejustice.org/wc/ray_krone_JD_vol2_i9.htm

[Great Dane]

On what grounds could he file for an appeal????

And I hope no one is follish enough to help him obtain 95k to do it...:thumbdown:

[♫Rock*Star♫]

snipped for context

you only showed us that 12 people thought that

The twelve people whose judgment matters. :thumbup:

[LisaM22]

The twelve people whose judgment matters. :thumbup:

like I said, juries sometimes get it wrong, sometimes even TWO juries

http://www.forejustice.org/wc/ray_krone_JD_vol2_i9.htm

[♫Rock*Star♫]

like I said, juries sometimes get it wrong.


And you can continuously say it, write it down, scream it from the rooftops...

Alas... Scott Peterson will still be a convicted murderer & Scott Peterson will still be on Death Row & Scott Peterson will still die in prison.

Rightfully so.

[Great Dane]

like I said, juries sometimes get it wrong, sometimes even TWO juries

http://www.forejustice.org/wc/ray_krone_JD_vol2_i9.htm

They have been known to make errors- but in this case, I think they got it right. What areas more specifically, do you think they faltered on?

[LisaM22]

Zumba, I used to think that way. My heart is now heavy with all the recent exonerations of prisoners in Texas, many who have spent huge chunks of their life in prison, some who have actually died there after being convicted for crimes they did not commit.

Crimes for which there was no DNA evidence testing at the time - but now, they are clearly innocent.

This case doesn't appear to have any DNA, or any that the public knows about, that would help clear up the question.

There wasn't more than enough evidence to convict him. There was certainly more than enough evidence to suspect him, and investigate him.

There wasn't more than enough to convict him. A jury finding of guilt isn't like transubstantiation, magically turning something into something else in one moment.

If he was guilty on Dec. 25, he was just as guilty when they convicted him. If he was INNOCENT on Dec. 25, he hasn't become guilty because a jury says he is. He is just now being treated as if he is guilty. The jury verdict hasn't changed the truth, whatever that is. A jury also, by a finding of not guilty, change a the reality of a guilty person. Just changes where that person lives.

exactly.....

[Great Dane]

If you are doubtful, I suggest reading Amber Frey's novel about her interaction with Scott, her involvment with the police, the case, the time frame...it's a fast read AND it should quiet ANY of your dobts about his guilt/innocence....

[LisaM22]

How would one know this if they didn't follow the case like LisaM hasn't? See that link she relies on? It is a joke, no credibility. The guy is a total fruitloop. MOO

:laugh:

looks like all you can do is attack posters, and act like you know it all, I am done with this thread, have fun

[Details]

I don't agree with this at all. Odd behavior got him convicted? You kidding? I will suggest to you as well to brush up on the facts of the case like I asked LisaM to do.

MOOIt wasn't "odd behavior", and it wasn't having a girlfriend. It was strong circumstantial evidence that rose to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The victim vanished from the house at the same time as he left the house, turned up dead in the same distant place he went, having died at the time he was there. That's more than enough to convict. Had she been at the house, there'd be reason to doubt, many people could have killed her and left her. Had it been close to the house - again, far less proof. But to have the killer somehow pick the same distant place SP happens to go fishing that day for the first time ever - yeah, that doesn't work. We're talking 1 in a billion coincidence (no, no chance of dumping the body later, when word of his cover story got out - the area was being watched by police, curious people, media, etc.) here - that's proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Add in his clear "consciousness of guilt" (I think I got the term wrong) factors - that he went where no innocent man would, to the one place Laci would not be if anyone else had killed her, to watch that search - and we're just overloading the proof. Add the boat purchased right after he told his girlfriend his wife was dead, a planned excuse for his girlfriend for him to be out of touch at that time, the boat being kept a secret, not registered, etc. - and we have something ridiculously solid.

[msgatorslayer]

Let him join the ranks of the majority of DR'owers by getting a State appointed, PD to file his appeal. IMO

[lunchlady]

The circumstantial evidence seems pretty good to me, but he's certainly entitled to an appeal if he wants one. Wonder if he'll get enough donations. Why does the appeal cost so much? I thought prisoners could appeal without raising so much dough, but I don't know how it works. Maybe he wants better service than what's available for free, if there is such a thing. If you don't use a public defender for the trial do you have to pay for your appeals too?
Wonder if the women who write him love letters are going to donate. Or his family. I won't be sending any money, that's for sure.

[msgatorslayer]

The circumstantial evidence seems pretty good to me, but he's certainly entitled to an appeal if he wants one. Wonder if he'll get enough donations. Why does the appeal cost so much? I thought prisoners could appeal without raising so much dough, but I don't know how it works. Maybe he wants better service than what's available for free, if there is such a thing. If you don't use a public defender for the trial do you have to pay for your appeals too?
Wonder if the women who write him love letters are going to donate. Or his family. I won't be sending any money, that's for sure.

One of the reasons it is cheaper for a state to give a life sentence to a convict instead of a death sentence is the huge costs associated with the appeals process. And the state is responsible for paying for it.

Scooter's family still treats him as their golden child. No public defender is good enough for their boy.

[Details]

...
Add to all this, there are two witnesses who state they saw Laci walking the dog that day. On the other hand, Scott made some weird comments about how his wife died on Christmas eve. Very weird.....Look into the dog walking witnesses. They've all been proven false. They were good people, and trying to help - but they simply didn't see Laci on the day she disappeared. It's a common breed of dog, and everyone was trying to think of anything they might have seen to help. Some were found to be on the wrong day (because they were sure it happened as a football game that happened on another day was playing at the same time as they saw the woman with the dog. Most of them were at the wrong time - between when Laci was established by SP to be at home, and the time when her dog was found by the neighbor, is a very slim window. None of the sightings fit that window.

Had any of them fit, I've no doubt SP would have been aquitted.

[Details]

I'm a logical, puzzle person too - and I see more than enough evidence to know. I listed it above. It's not that difficult of a case. There are many ways she could have been killed and transported that would not leave DNA - not that finding a husband's DNA would prove much of anything.

We've got the very narrow window in which she disappeared. That's refinement 1 - you have either her husband, or someone EXTREMELY fast and totally invisible, complete speculation. Then you've got her body showing up right where the husband went - a very distant location, when there were many other choices of where to dump the body that would work better for anyone not related to her. That right there - it's an element that is just unworkable for it to be anyone else - the odds are ridiculously against it. This alone goes BARD for me.

Adding in that he told his girlfriend she was dead, asked his girlfriend for some low-contact time at the same time his wife ended up dying - and you have foreknowledge of Laci's death. Add in the boat, the fact he never registered it, didn't mention it to anyone - not even his fishing buddy, Laci's father - we've got a bit more evidence. This collection here, without the above - it also goes pretty close to BARD, WITHOUT the other added in, with it, we've got BARD-squared.


There is enough evidence. No video, no DNA - merely a set of information that put together logically excludes anyone else, perfectly includes one person - SP.

[canUCme?]

I sincerely apologize if this has been started elsewhere, but I searched and didn't find anything.
Did you see that his family is soliciting donations towards his appeal?
OMG!
"C"

[Beach]

Hi "C", they can solicit all they want...they won't get anything from me!

[cookiedog]

Oh my Goodness! Are you kidding?

[Details]

There's another thread here:
http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=356116

I doubt they're kidding - but someone on the other thread pointed out - interesting how the amount they're asking for never seems to drop or change....

[ViennaGal]

I had to tie my hands up to keep for reaching for the checkbook! NOT!!!!!!!!!! :scared: They are as sick as ever.

[Mandysmom]

I had to tie my hands up to keep for reaching for the checkbook! NOT!!!!!!!!!! :scared: They are as sick as ever.

:scared: I was pulling out the old credit card myself. Too bad it expired in 1998.

[NatalieB]

The case, and the trial, are nice and solid. But if people want to waste their money - what can you do.

She vanished from her house right at the same time as he left - due to the dog, and his statements about what is on TV, the window is incredibly tight. He went fishing on a boat no one knew he had, that he'd never registered, with a fishing permit he'd gotten a few days ago, at a bay quite aways away not well suited for that boat, passing many better choices. When the search moved to there, he went and watched the search - an innocent man wouldn't have bothered to watch a search the one place he could know she wasn't.

They had more than enough evidence, and no grounds for an appeal.

DNA isn't always present - frequently is not present - nor is it required for a conviction.

Well, I concur that there was more than enough evidence to get a conviction, there are ALWAYS grounds for an appeal. We'll just have to see how the higher courts feel. A case was once overturned because the parents of the victim wore buttons into court with their son's (murdered son) picture on it. It's downright absurd, IMO, but what can you do? ANYTHING can be an appellant issue, but I pray that's not the case here.

We don't know that DNA wasn't present either. Since Scott's DNA was all over that house, the killer's DNA means little in a case like this.

[NatalieB]

i am more interested in finding out the truth no mater which way it points then making up stuff so that I feel better about wishing someone dead

try to do some research on the DP and you will see it requires a higher degree of certainty then beyond a reasonable doubt, did you really not know that? did you watch the sentencing in this trial? the judge discussed it

I believe it should require a hire standard than reasonable doubt and have advocated that repeatedly on these boards, but according to the law Lisa, I do believe that is the standard.

[NatalieB]

you did nothing, you only showed us that 12 people thought that, do you think OJ, MJ and RB were innocent? 12 people voted not guilty

and thanks for admitting your just playing games

Jurors acquitting someone doesn't necessarily mean jurors thought the perp innocent. In some cases, it just means that they didn't feel the state had met the burden of reasonable doubt. I'm sure in some cases it does indeed mean that jurors feel the perp innocent, but not in all.

A guilty verdict means, the state met that burden.

[NatalieB]

On what grounds could he file for an appeal????

And I hope no one is follish enough to help him obtain 95k to do it...:thumbdown:

Juror misconduct perhaps. Jurors rocking the boat perhaps? Who knows. I'm sure there are many other issues that will be attempted. Will any of it matter? Well, it depends on who is making that determination. I'd like to say it will never happen, but convictions have been overturned for some of the silliest of reasons, so never say never.

If it's overturned however, I am 99.99999% convinced he will be found guilty in a subsequent trial(s).

[NatalieB]

like I said, juries sometimes get it wrong, sometimes even TWO juries

http://www.forejustice.org/wc/ray_krone_JD_vol2_i9.htm

This is unfortunate. I didn't read your link because I know enough cases where jurors have gotten it wrong to not question your point. In a lot of cases, there is prosecutorial misconduct and if we'd hold prosecutors to some sort of standards, I believe we would have less innocent people in our prisons. A guilty verdict should never give anyone ANY type of political clout, yet it does. These prosecutors should have the full force of the law coming down on their heads as well in these types of cases, IMO.

[NatalieB]

It's to your credit that you put MOO after your statement, because honestly, I can't believe how positive people can be about a verdict when there is no evidence. There is just strong suspicion, based on Scott Peterson's odd behaviors. That's not beyond a reasonable doubt. He was displaying odd behaviors long before Laci was killed.

There was plenty of evidence against him. You just chose not to give it the weight that jurors did. And, unless you read the transcripts (I did and I know many others did as well), you didn't hear everything the jurors heard.

Here is something you probably give no weight to. Trimble (SP? forget after all these years) hit at the marina on Dec. 26th. The same marina (Berkeley) where Scott placed himself. At this point in time, the public had no idea where SP was that day. It came out at a later time.

Check those phone calls. The cell towers switched at the EXACT time for Scott to be leaving his house and arriving at the warehouse. It was down to the minute (unless you blew everything off as each little thing in and of itself didn't prove..... yada, yada, yada). It was MINUTES later that the dog was returned to the yard. That gave no time for Laci to get to the park where the transients would murder her. Remember too, she had to change her clothing during this time frame as well. Oh, and remove jewelry, etc.... finish moping a floor. Curl her hair, etc... etc.... Oh, and let's not forget, get the dog on a leash.

Remember his story with the umbrellas? They were in the backyard, and he had to move them to the garage. He piled them into his truck, yet goes to the warehouse, comes home, finds his wife not there and decides to unload the umbrellas back into the yard again?

There were a million pieces to this puzzle. You definitely had to put the puzzle together, but once that puzzle was completed, there was nothing reasonable about anyone else killing his wife and child.

[NatalieB]

I don't agree with this at all. Odd behavior got him convicted? You kidding? I will suggest to you as well to brush up on the facts of the case like I asked LisaM to do.

MOO

Odd behavior did get him convicted. All his odd behaviors PLUS a 1001 other pieces of the puzzle.

[Noahs ARK]

Yeah - I saw that!

I sent them a blank check and told them to just fill in the amount they need.

:tonguewag:

[rambo55]

I find it laughable the Petersons are asking for money... MAYBE they have finally realised their "perfect son" is where he deserves to be and don't want to go any further into debt trying to save his sorry - - - .

Wake up Scott - be a man for once and admit you killed your wife and unborn child. You really are the scum of the scum pool.

[NatalieB]

I am actually interested in SAR, so I followed closely the SAR evidence during the investigation of Laci's disappearance.

A search dog would be expected to hit on a scent carried by a husband. Expected to. Not just might, would be expected to.

That Scott Peterson was at the Pier, you would EXPECT a talented search dog to hit on her scent there. If you don't understand SAR, you wouldn't know this.

Interestingly, none of the search dogs could pick up Laci's scent from places they knew for a fact she had recently been. For whatever reason - some people don't put off much scent, or the item used to teach the dogs the scent is actually not full of scent, or whatever. For this reason DeLucci disallowed most of the search dog testimony and specifically called Trimble's behavior "iffy at best".

Remember Jessica Lunsford and how the search dogs inexplicably couldn't track her scent? Don't know.

There are a million pieces to this puzzle, that's for sure. Looking very hard at each piece of information, and understanding each detail is SO important. And most people probably don't know that a search dog would be expected to hit on her scent there, if Scott himself had been there. That the other dogs didn't also is . . .well, one more reason search dog evidence shouldn't be taken as gospel.

Why don't you show me a link where a search dog hits on the scent from a spouse? We all shed skin cells every 2nd of the day. It's those cells that the dogs are picking up. I have followed more than my share of cases and have never once heard or read that a dog picks up the smell from someone else. Do I think it's theoretically possible? Perhaps, but I don't find that to be a reasonable conclusion. IMO, you're grasping. You're choosing to take every piece of evidence on and show why it in and of itself doesn't prove murder (while ignoring evidences that you can't simply explain away - thus the reason you only took on the dog evidence when I specifically gave 3 examples and could give 1000 more). That is NOT how a circumstantial evidence case works.

Since you say you followed the SAR evidence closely, that screams to me that you didn't follow the trial testimony of ALL the evidence. Jurors didn't have that luxury. They didn't get to pick and choose what they wanted to know more about. They heard it all and at the end of the day, hearing it all only led them to 1 conclusions. For anyone to sit back and not know everything that happened in that courtroom, but feels this jury is wrong, is just downright ignorant, IMO. I'm not saying this specifically to you or anyone else, but for anyone to challenge their decision without having all the facts in front of them does nothing more than mocks our judicial system, IMO.

As for other dog evidences, not all dogs are created equal, so it's hard to cross cases, but in general, I have never put much weight on any dog evidence (it was simply 1 example of 1000 to me).

Oh, and the dogs did hit on other areas in the Peterson case. Those hits didn't lead to the remains, that's why that evidence wasn't allowed in. Remember the tarp with the gas on it? Why during the search for a missing wife would Scott move that tarp to the shed where it ended up contaminated? Many things worked out quite conveniently for Scott. Those cadaver dogs did supposedly hit on that shed though. You didn't hear it in court, but they supposedly did hit.

[Dtviewer3]

Hmm. I don't agree. I think had he come out, acted somber and respectful, stated what a difficult case this is to sift through mountains of confusing evidence, that this case would truly tax their ability to reason and focus on evidence and not perception. And explain in the very beginning what guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is, I think they may have started off on a different foot. And ended in a different place, with a hung jury. Oh wait, they did end with hung jury but they kicked the dissenter off the island.

No, they did not.
You are making stuff up.

[ViennaGal]

Yeah - I saw that!

I sent them a blank check and told them to just fill in the amount they need.

:tonguewag:

:lol: Noah. That's a good one and MM and her expired card. :thumbsup:

[NatalieB]

No, they did not.
You are making stuff up.

Thank you for bumping that up. I hadn't even read that earlier. I guess I was busy trying to make my way thru the thread.

You're absolutely right. The JD/MD specifically said he was going to be opting for guilt, but he wasn't sure if he was opting for it because he felt SP guilty, or if it was because of public opinion in the case.

Either way you slice or dice it, the JD/MD was sure guilty and he LEFT of his OWN accord (spineless whiner IMO).

Oh, and so was the woman who was dismissed for researching things on her computer. She specifically stated, this is the verdict I would have wanted.

Now, Justin Falconer? Who knows where he'd have went if he could have taken his promise seriously. Since he was buds with the firefighter, I bet he'd have been a guilty by the end of the trial, but for interviews, he remained in the NG corner till the end. IMO, his 15 minutes was up, but he refused to go away. Remaining steadfast in SP's corner kept him on the air. We found out he didn't know Jack, didn't we?

[trucrime]

<respectfully snipped> Looking very hard at each piece of information, and understanding each detail is SO important.


IMO but I respectfully disagree. Sure each piece of info/evidence needs to be looked at firmly but you can't spend hour upon hour debating a tiny element of a WHOLE case. Imagine if each piece of evidence in every trial took forever to work through and diagnose. What if you had 10 evidence items but only 8 showed likely guilt? What of the other 2 and does that lessen the 8 points that likely prove guilt. Most crimes dont have direct witnesses and are convicted from circumstantial evidence as a whole.

For this specific case IMO there's a mountain of CE pointing right at Scott Peterson and the jury convicted him rightfully so on that.

JMO

[Dtviewer3]

Zumba, it is very possible to know all the facts of the case and still reach a different conclusion than the one you reached. I have no brushing up to do. I get it.

It is quite within the realm of possibility that in fact, Laci Peterson went to walk her dog that morning, and was nabbed by someone as yet unknown, and killed and placed in the bay at the base of the bridge.

That is completely possible. There is no evidence whatsoever that contradicts that possibility.

On the other side, making a strong case that Scott Peterson is guilty, is the fact that he went out there fishing that day in the bay, and was having a secret affair behind Laci's back. That's compelling.

But it does not take this to beyond a reasonable doubt.

Add to all this, there are two witnesses who state they saw Laci walking the dog that day. On the other hand, Scott made some weird comments about how his wife died on Christmas eve. Very weird.

This is a very confusing and detailed case, and we can both be looking at all the same facts and come up with different conclusions.

NO witnesses testified that they saw Laci walking the dog after Scott left that day..

But there ARE people who state that they have recently seen Elvis at WalMart, so it MUST be true......:rolleyes:

[Dtviewer3]

It's not solid, details. It's certainly compelling, that's true.

Even the prosecution couldn't come up with a string of events that made sense. They don't know how she died, how he got her out of the house, how he got her in the bay in that shallow boat while people watched him launch but did not notice her remains, etc. The prosecution couldn't answer all the questions.

One point of interest, for me, is how he is insisting he's innocent. Most people in prison, despite what common knowledge says, do admit their guilt. The great majority freely admit they did what they were convicted of.

Its the ones who declare their innocence, to everyone who will listen and for years on end, who get my attention. Because it could be that what he's saying is true. It could be.

Who watched him launch? No one testified to that.

Again, no need to make up 'facts' RachellRose.......

[trucrime]

Can someone link up UNALTERED trial transcripts?

Id look but dont want to inadvertently link or read the transcripts that have been tampered with. Thanks.

[Dtviewer3]

It's not solid, details. It's certainly compelling, that's true.

Even the prosecution couldn't come up with a string of events that made sense. They don't know how she died, how he got her out of the house, how he got her in the bay in that shallow boat while people watched him launch but did not notice her remains, etc. The prosecution couldn't answer all the questions.

One point of interest, for me, is how he is insisting he's innocent. Most people in prison, despite what common knowledge says, do admit their guilt. The great majority freely admit they did what they were convicted of.

Its the ones who declare their innocence, to everyone who will listen and for years on end, who get my attention. Because it could be that what he's saying is true. It could be.

Do you have a link to that? Anything to back up that statement?
Thanks in advance.....

[NatalieB]

Can someone link up UNALTERED trial transcripts?

Id look but dont want to inadvertently link or read the transcripts that have been tampered with. Thanks.

The site I used was pulled long ago, but the one site I was aware of that had them online for a LONG time seems to have taken them down now too. Actually, the entire site is gone.

Hope someone else can link you to them. Sorry.

[Dtviewer3]

How about this one? 95% of the felons in prison are there by plea bargain, which by definition means they have pled guilty.

That leaves only a 5% pool of prisoners who might have continuously and steadfastly maintained innocence.

You're welcome. ;D

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts187.html

Nice try.
I want to see reliable FACTS. Not a 'blog' from an anti-govement nutcase.

You are really reaching Rachell.............

[Dtviewer3]

You look it up yourself. You find a stat that shows what percentage of prisoners are there through jury trial, and what percentage have admitted guilt through plea bargain, dt.

I'm not here to do all your googling. I'm here to discuss the realities of this case, and I'm not going to be dragging you along behind while you insist on being spoon fed.

Haha-you have got to be kidding. In other words, you cant back up your statement with facts.
No surprise.
You have filled this thread with mis-truths and out and out lies, which I and others have pointed out.

Unreal..........

[NatalieB]

You look it up yourself. You find a stat that shows what percentage of prisoners are there through jury trial, and what percentage have admitted guilt through plea bargain, dt.

I'm not here to do all your googling. I'm here to discuss the realities of this case, and I'm not going to be dragging you along behind while you insist on being spoon fed.

Spoon fed? You've listed erroneous information about 10 times so far, but we're being (or that poster in particular) is being spoon fed?

It appears to me that Dtviewer3 did his/her homework. I'd be curious to know the nick at the time of the case? Mine were, NancyT, Nancy2, maybe another in there somewhere, LOL, then onto Rayny, and then NatalieB. :)

[bearwds]

Local news coverage last night in the district he murdered his wife and unborn son (KGO TV , San Francisco).

I was so gobsmacked when I heard it, I couldn't really focus.

Death row, San Quentin, 4 years in the joint, new appeal, $50 donation limit, not to burden parents, web site organized by his siblings.

Sorry, that's all that stuck.


bearwds

[Dtviewer3]

I don't know what you're asking - you're curious "to know the nick at the time of the case"? I don't know what you're asking.

In rethinking, I was wrong about witnesses watching Scott launch the boat - in retrospect, the witnesses watched him retrieve the boat out of the water.
There were no witnesses who testified to watching Scott launch OR retrieve his boat. None.

I don't think I've said anything else erroneous. There WERE witnesses who claim to have seen Laci at the time she was supposed to be walking McKenzie.
There were NO witnesses who ever testified to seeing Laci walk the dog that day. NONE.

That jury was hung - until the dissenter was removed. I stand by that.
The jury was NEVER hung. An the MD who left while the jury was decideing on Scott's guilt said that he was voting GUILTY. He was not a 'dissenter'.


You don't agree with my perspective that this trial is too confusing to call, that's fine. WHat I'm saying, though, is true.
No, your posts have been full of wrong information/lies. And have been pointed out as such.

Are you also going to insist that most prisoners don't admit guilt?
Im going to admit that I do not believe your claim that 95% of prisoners admit guilt. BTW, I have no problem discussing facts. I do have a problem with 'misinformation' being posted as 'fact' and will point it out..

Responses in red above.

[NatalieB]

I don't know what you're asking - you're curious "to know the nick at the time of the case"? I don't know what you're asking.

In rethinking, I was wrong about witnesses watching Scott launch the boat - in retrospect, the witnesses watched him retrieve the boat out of the water.

I don't think I've said anything else erroneous. There WERE witnesses who claim to have seen Laci at the time she was supposed to be walking McKenzie. That jury was hung - until the dissenter was removed. I stand by that.

You don't agree with my perspective that this trial is too confusing to call, that's fine. WHat I'm saying, though, is true.

Are you also going to insist that most prisoners don't admit guilt?

The JD/MD was upset because he couldn't be sure he wasn't opting for guilt for the wrong reason. Why you think it was hung is nothing more than your or someone else's overactive imagination. That's the facts.

No one testified that they saw him removing the boat, either. Unless I am forgetting something?

NO witness testified that they saw Laci walking the dog. There was even a woman who looked similar to Laci who did testify, but she was not out walking that day either. From what I heard, she was a dead ringer for Laci too.

I don't know how many posters admit guilt, so I won't go there.

As for the nick, I was asking that poster what his/her nick was at the time of the SP trial. I was saying my prior nicks at that time.

[trucrime]

You look it up yourself. You find a stat that shows what percentage of prisoners are there through jury trial, and what percentage have admitted guilt through plea bargain, dt.

I'm not here to do all your googling. I'm here to discuss the realities of this case, and I'm not going to be dragging you along behind while you insist on being spoon fed.

First off I know this wasnt directed at me. I understand you arent everyones "googler" but if you say something that is a "fact" about the case, you should be able to back it up with a factual link. Which IMO would not be a blog of someone elses opinion. To say "... and I'm not going to be dragging you behind while you insist on being spoon fed." really detracts from the points you are trying to make. I don't feel anyone is picking on you, but people will speak up if they feel someone is saying misinformation.

JMO

[trucrime]

The site I used was pulled long ago, but the one site I was aware of that had them online for a LONG time seems to have taken them down now too. Actually, the entire site is gone.

Hope someone else can link you to them. Sorry.

Thanks anyway. I will try and find them later, but want to make sure I have the legit transcripts. I wasnt aware a SP groupie had alterted them and put them on the WWW. JMO.

[NatalieB]

I'm burning burgers on the grill. LOL

But I did want to quickly add that Scott was the ONLY person to EVER say he was seen at the marina. After a worldwide audience (very high profile case), there has not been a single person come forth to claim that they did in fact see him there that day.

[Dtviewer3]

I don't know about testified. There were two witnesses at the marina who watched him retrieve the boat, and they laughed to each other about his inexperience. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it didn't happen, and wasn't reported in the media. Be careful about saying something didn't happen, just because you are unaware.
Like I have said to you repeatedly. No witness ever testified about seeing Scott at the marina. As a matter of fact no one ever came forward and said they saw Scott at the marina. Only Scott claimed that.

The most reliable witness who saw Laci walking was put under hypnosis by LE, and so was barred from testifying. Her testimony was referred to as "tained".
She never testified. We dont know what she would have testified to. We DO know that people claim to see Elvis all the time....

There were other witnesses, most notably the old man who died before trial. There were many others, some who came out in the media stating that they had called in their tip and were ignored. Again, be wary of saying things didn't happen just because you don't know about it.
If it wasnt testified to in trial, if it wasnt put to the test of cross-examination, then it has no weight. Zero. Actually, even less than zero.

My main point about prisoners was MOST admit guilt, and it's rare for someone to insist the whole way through that they are innocent. It was my link that said 95% are in prison through plea bargain - since I can't find another link that disputes that, maybe you want to find one?
I dont have to find links to prove/disprove YOUR claims. I choose not to believe them, especially after so many of your posts are shown to be out and out wrong.

Just because you don't know/remember something, it doesn't make it wrong, Natalie.
Your information has been shown and proven to be wrong over and over. And over.

Above in red.......

[Dtviewer3]

No, he wasn't. In the SacBee there was an article about two guys who laughed at his inexperience. They noticed him and what stood out and made them remember him is that he had trouble getting his boat on the ramp. And they were kind of laughing and derisive.

And no, I don't have a link. Most of the links have expired over time.

Again, misinformation.
There were NO articles in the Sacbee with guys claiming they were laughing at Scott.

Scott 'claimed' some guys at the marina saw him and were laughing. NO ONE EVER came forward and said they saw Scott at the marina. That was only a story from Scott.

No disrespect intended, but I really see why you think Scott 'may' be innocent. You have the facts of the case completely wrong.
You have taken rumor, gossip and mis-truths as fact.

[NatalieB]

I don't know about testified. There were two witnesses at the marina who watched him retrieve the boat, and they laughed to each other about his inexperience. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it didn't happen, and wasn't reported in the media. Be careful about saying something didn't happen, just because you are unaware.

The most reliable witness who saw Laci walking was put under hypnosis by LE, and so was barred from testifying. Her testimony was referred to as "tained".

There were other witnesses, most notably the old man who died before trial. There were many others, some who came out in the media stating that they had called in their tip and were ignored. Again, be wary of saying things didn't happen just because you don't know about it.

My main point about prisoners was MOST admit guilt, and it's rare for someone to insist the whole way through that they are innocent. It was my link that said 95% are in prison through plea bargain - since I can't find another link that disputes that, maybe you want to find one?

Just because you don't know/remember something, it doesn't make it wrong, dt.

I never said there were witnesses who TESTIFIED they saw Laci. I said there were witnesses who stated they saw her. Just like the marina guys. THey weren't needed at trial, obviously.

I don't mean this to be ignorant, but perhaps it's you who should stop saying something as fact just because you think you heard it.

The witness you're referring to was actually a STATE witness, not a witness for the defense. LE hypnotized her and that's why it was decided she could not testify. She was NEVER going to testify that she saw Laci walking her dog. I'd link to you, but IMO, it's you who should do this research because you obviously don't know of what you speak.

I think it was also actually a WOMAN who died before trial. The husband insists he saw nothing!

Maybe you should be wary of what you have to say.

[NatalieB]

No, he wasn't. In the SacBee there was an article about two guys who laughed at his inexperience. They noticed him and what stood out and made them remember him is that he had trouble getting his boat on the ramp. And they were kind of laughing and derisive.

And no, I don't have a link. Most of the links have expired over time.

You're right, you don't have a link because it NEVER happened. NO ONE EVER came forward to say they saw him. He was the ONLY person to EVER say that. I'm not going to let you get away with crap. You stated that they did, now prove it. That is the rules of this board.

[Details]

There were no witnesses who thought they saw Laci with the dog at a time when the dog was available. That was a skinny window of time, and none of the sightings fall within it anywhere Laci could have gotten to in that time. They simply don't physically work.

[NatalieB]

Again, misinformation.
There were NO articles in the Sacbee with guys claiming they were laughing at Scott.

Scott 'claimed' some guys at the marina saw him and were laughing. NO ONE EVER came forward and said they saw Scott at the marina. That was only a story from Scott.

No disrespect intended, but I really see why you think Scott 'may' be innocent. You have the facts of the case completely wrong.
You have taken rumor, gossip and mis-truths as fact.


This was one of those issues that the Peterson family took on. We're going to get a PI and prove that he was seen. It never played out though, did it?

[NatalieB]

RachelRose,
It's no wonder you feel this jury got it so wrong. How dare you not know much of anything about this case yet have the nerve to insist they convicted without proof. You're making a mockery of the justice system, IMO. Shame on you.

[NatalieB]

There were no witnesses who thought they saw Laci with the dog at a time when the dog was available. That was a skinny window of time, and none of the sightings fall within it anywhere Laci could have gotten to in that time. They simply don't physically work.

This means nothing to some. You know, those unimportant details?

[Len]

Scott Peterson is as guilty as it gets. Hard to understand how would anyone believe he did not do it.

[Details]

...
The most reliable witness who saw Laci walking was put under hypnosis by LE, and so was barred from testifying. Her testimony was referred to as "tained".Especially since the time she gave was a time when it was not possible to have seen Laci - IIRC, hours after Mackenzie had been found and returned to the yard.There were other witnesses, most notably the old man who died before trial. There were many others, some who came out in the media stating that they had called in their tip and were ignored. Again, be wary of saying things didn't happen just because you don't know about it.Actually - it was an old WOMAN. And she said she saw Laci while her husband was watching a football game - that game was the day before Laci vanished. All the other witnesses were similar. There's a narrow window - and a dark haired woman walking a golden retriever is not particularly an uncommon sight.

The fact no witness was called to testify should give you pause. Why would the defense fail to call such a wonderful exculpatory witness? Because their testimony, on cross examination simply wouldn't hold up - the times on all of them, as reported in the papers and every leak, simply did not match any possible timeline.

[Dtviewer3]

Scott Peterson is as guilty as it gets. Hard to understand how would anyone believe he did not do it.


Len!!!!:scared:


Haha....hi!!

[NatalieB]

I don't know what this site is, but it's the truth, regardless:

Witness was hypnotizedThe final motion seeks to toss testimony from a witness that was hypnotized by investigators. The witness, Kristen Dempewolf, was in a similar stage of pregnancy as Laci and allegedly walked her dog in the same neighborhood on Christmas Eve 2002. Prosecutors are expected to use Dempewolf to discredit a neighbor who said she saw Laci walking her golden retriever on the same morning prosecutors contend Peterson dumped her body in San Francisco Bay.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20040210/ai_n14569195/

BTW, the old lady is the woman who died.

[Len]

NO witnesses testified that they saw Laci walking the dog after Scott left that day..

But there ARE people who state that they have recently seen Elvis at WalMart, so it MUST be true......:rolleyes:


DT,
Finally a case that we agree on. SP is totally guilty. A criminal and pathological liar.

[Dtviewer3]

DT,
Finally a case that we agree on. SP is totally guilty. A criminal and pathological liar.

And Hans Reiser, also. (probably CS also.....:smile:)

[NatalieB]

Especially since the time she gave was a time when it was not possible to have seen Laci - IIRC, hours after Mackenzie had been found and returned to the yard.

snip.

Were you referring to that one woman who was on her break and insisted that she saw Laci? It was much later in the day and it was impossible for her to have seen Laci since Mac was returned to the yard by this time.

Boy that neighbor (the vegetarian that SP cooked up tortellini for on Christmas day while her family was out looking for Laci) sure ruined his defense, didn't she?

[Dtviewer3]

Natalie, that's over the top. Really. *rolls eyes* This is a discussion board on the internet. I think "making a mockery of the justice system" and "shame on you" is a bit grandiose.

So. Back to topic, and I'm really interested in the topic. So I keep coming back here.

So. Most remember the two witnesses who laughed at Scott. I believe that there actually were witnesses, others believe they were a figment of Scott's imagination, and Scott's story.

Link please? I've been trying to dig it up, and remember old details, and I can't find any reference - whether actual guys or fictional witnesses Scott made up - for this story that most of us actually remember.

No, NO ONE remembers the 2 'witnesses' who laughed at Scott.
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, and you choose to ignore, no witnesses have ever come forward and said they saw Scott at the marina.

Even now, years later, there still has never been a witness found who claims to have seen Scott.

[Dtviewer3]

DT, you said this:

"Scott 'claimed' some guys at the marina saw him and were laughing. NO ONE EVER came forward and said they saw Scott at the marina. That was only a story from Scott."


Link please? We all remember the story, you believe Scott said it.

Link?

*and I mean that respectfully. I'd really like to see it, that the men didn't say it, Scott did. That may well be.*

I suggest you take your own advice:

Originally posted by RachelRose:
"You look it up yourself.---snipped---dt.

I'm not here to do all your googling. I'm here to discuss the realities of this case, and I'm not going to be dragging you along behind while you insist on being spoon fed."

[Len]

And Hans Reiser, also. (probably CS also.....:smile:)

Oh yes, Hans Reiser as well. I am not sure about CS. I always thought she was innocent, while you cheated in that case lol. You said she was innocent after the judge cleared her :-)

[warhorse46]

I sincerely apologize if this has been started elsewhere, but I searched and didn't find anything.
Did you see that his family is soliciting donations towards his appeal?
OMG!
"C"


His supporters have been soliciting donations since he was convicted. Even Garagos had a plea on his website to donate to the Peterson appeals fund. And it was on the Peterson family website for a long time. None of them are getting a penny from this old gal. IMO he is exactly where he should be.

[Dtviewer3]

Oh yes, Hans Reiser as well. I am not sure about CS. I always thought she was innocent, while you cheated in that case lol. You said she was innocent after the judge cleared her :-)

Not completely true.

I STILL dont know that CS is innocent. Just that she isnt charged right now with a crime......:wink:

Someday I will read up on the case and give a real opinion........

[Len]

Not completely true.

I STILL dont know that CS is innocent. Just that she isnt charged right now with a crime......:wink:

Someday I will read up on the case and give a real opinion........



There was no crime committed in the CS case. Just a laboratory error. Contamination. Hopefully she will eventually sue the state and make a lot of money. She deserves it.

[bearwds]

Went looking for some info:

www.sfgate.com

Click on "Scott Peterson family asking for donations"

349 "comments"...interesting


bearwds

[5boxersmom]

Yeah - I saw that!

I sent them a blank check and told them to just fill in the amount they need.

:tonguewag:

:lol::wink:

Nice of you to help Poor Scott.

[Dtviewer3]

I'm asking again for a link.

I got *crickets* from everyone the first time I asked for your link.

You really don't remember the story, do you?

If you do, and you have a link to a story where Scott "claimed" some guys at the marina saw him, please post it.

Anyone.

Pretty funny that you of all people would be asking for links multiple times after your pathetic rant about how you are nobodys 'googler' and arent here to drag anybody along.

But seeing how you cant back up your own posts, I'll go head and back up mine. Most of the old links are gone but heres some to help you along.
No one has come forward to say they had seen Scott at the marina:
http://www.poeforward.com/deadgirls/peterson.html

Heres one where the defense team is begging for someone to come forward:
http://www.lawresearchservices.com/firms/trials/Peterson-news.htm

Heres one you'll like:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/11/court.archive.peterson10/index.html
From that link "Peterson told police that marina workers saw him returning from the bay and asked him about his fishing trip.
Those men — if they existed and were ever located — never took the stand.

[NatalieB]

I'm asking again for a link.

I got *crickets* from everyone the first time I asked for your link.

You really don't remember the story, do you?

If you do, and you have a link to a story where Scott "claimed" some guys at the marina saw him, please post it.

Anyone.

Seriously, if you can't find this much, your googling skills are horrible. There are many sites where I read that Scott had made the claim.

I have been looking for quite some time however and can't find a credible source to say that no one came forward. The reasons for that are 2 fold though. 1. It's been a long time and most of the links are no longer valid. I see many lead ins from links where keywords come up in a search, but when I click on them, they're no longer available. 2. It's harder to find something that never happened than it is to find something that did. In other words, it's hard to find a site that states no one testified to this. It would be MUCH easier if someone had actually testified about it. Since that never happened, it's dang difficult to find a news source that printed as much (especially one that's not been pulled by now). I have however found some message boards where posters had discussed the fact at the time that no one has ever come forward to say they saw Scott.

I can guarantee you that no one ever testified to this. I think you even believe that as you said upthread, just because no one testified about it, it doesn't mean no one ever came forward. Think about that for a minute though. If the defense could prove that Scott was seen that day, is it really logical to believe these guys wouldn't have been called as witnesses? BTW, I believe Scott said they were maintenance workers. Try that in your google search and you might be more successful. Then keep in mind that all maintenance workers were questioned by LE. Also keep in mind that some testified and not once did MG ask them if they saw SP at the marina that day. Wonder why that may be?

[taylor63]

I just really believe he is guilty. Not only because Laci and Connor's body turned up the exact place he was the night she disappeared, but several other extremely important factors like the fact that he had scratches on his hand, which appear to be consistent with injuries someone would receive when a victim was fighting back. And of course,his behaviour he acted like he could care less about Laci right from the start. He was on the phone talking to his girlfriend telling her he loved her when his pregnant wife is missing, while total strangers were out holding a candlelight vigil for Laci. To me that is comparable to Casey going partying and getting a tatoo with the insigna "the beautiful life", when her 2 year old child had been missing for several weeks.

[Leanne Weich]

As some of you may recall, I've previously mentioned my b-i-l trains both SAR and cadaver dogs as well as is the founder of a SAR team which works voluntarily on missing person cases. I asked him about RR's (think it was her) allegation that dogs will pick up a scent of a person from the spouse. He asked me to explain under what circumstances the dog was likely to have picked up the scent. After filling him in, he just cracked up laughing. He said in his 30 year's experience in LE he's never heard anything so ridiculous. He did say, however, that if Scott and Laci had just been intimate and a dog was given Laci's scent and Scott had not ventured out of the environment where they were intimate, there was a possibility of the dog hitting on him.

[Cornblossom]

I wouldn't donate 50 cents!

[bearwds]

I sincerely apologize if this has been started elsewhere, but I searched and didn't find anything.
Did you see that his family is soliciting donations towards his appeal?
OMG!
"C"

********************************

Going back to the OP Post, there is "Subject" running that was started on the Main Board a couple of days ago. This will probably be merged when they get to it.


bearwds

[Cornblossom]

I am sure there are plenty of appellate lawyers just as good and cheaper...they should check the yellow pages...or Google. I wish someone would do it pro bono........the sooner his appeals are denied-the sooner his sentence is carried out.

[Cornblossom]

Do I have to read the site? Please don't make me read their site!! LMAO

[canUCme?]

Hi "C", they can solicit all they want...they won't get anything from me!

I am 100% in agreement with you Beach....they won't get dust from me. Unbelievable. WGN news was in hysterics this morning...they had a good chuckle about it too.
Just goes to show you...
"C"

[Cornblossom]

Corn Blossom I found exactly what they said. It isn't for just an investigator.

"Scott Peterson's family said it still needs $95,000 to help cover the costs of the investigation and is asking the public to help contribute."

6 yrs later they want to investigate this case? What have they been doing all this time?

Believe their plea and I have a bridge to sell you in the desert.

MOO

:lol:IMO.....$95,000.00 buys a lot of chips,dips,and beers-which will probably be what's "investigated" LMAO

[Beach]

I am 100% in agreement with you Beach....they won't get dust from me. Unbelievable. WGN news was in hysterics this morning...they had a good chuckle about it too.
Just goes to show you...
"C"

Did you read the comments at www.sfgate.com? Some of them made me chuckle.

[W_D_1]

NO witnesses testified that they saw Laci walking the dog after Scott left that day..

But there ARE people who state that they have recently seen Elvis at WalMart, so it MUST be true......:rolleyes:


Rachel didn't say there were witnesses who testified. She said witnessed stated and there were several who said they saw Laci walking the dog.

[warhorse46]

I am sure there are plenty of appellate lawyers just as good and cheaper...they should check the yellow pages...or Google. I wish someone would do it pro bono........the sooner his appeals are denied-the sooner his sentence is carried out.


California has a whole stable full of appellate lawyers who are state funded for indigent inmates. Scott filed for indigent status during the trial & it was granted.

[W_D_1]

Responses in red above.



Fran Gorman is the juror who said she would have voted guilty, not the JD/MD. He never spoke outside the court and never said how he was leaning.

One other appelate issue I have no doubt that will come up is juror #8's actions. He was dead set in getting certain people off that jury.

[W_D_1]

The JD/MD was upset because he couldn't be sure he wasn't opting for guilt for the wrong reason. Why you think it was hung is nothing more than your or someone else's overactive imagination. That's the facts.

No one testified that they saw him removing the boat, either. Unless I am forgetting something?

NO witness testified that they saw Laci walking the dog. There was even a woman who looked similar to Laci who did testify, but she was not out walking that day either. From what I heard, she was a dead ringer for Laci too.
I don't know how many posters admit guilt, so I won't go there.

As for the nick, I was asking that poster what his/her nick was at the time of the SP trial. I was saying my prior nicks at that time.


That was the asst DA who called police to say she thought it was possibly a case of mistaken ID. She was pretty much blown off by the police imo.

[W_D_1]

As some of you may recall, I've previously mentioned my b-i-l trains both SAR and cadaver dogs as well as is the founder of a SAR team which works voluntarily on missing person cases. I asked him about RR's (think it was her) allegation that dogs will pick up a scent of a person from the spouse. He asked me to explain under what circumstances the dog was likely to have picked up the scent. After filling him in, he just cracked up laughing. He said in his 30 year's experience in LE he's never heard anything so ridiculous. He did say, however, that if Scott and Laci had just been intimate and a dog was given Laci's scent and Scott had not ventured out of the environment where they were intimate, there was a possibility of the dog hitting on him.


Did you explain this possibility to him?

"If someone had been in that truck within 24 hours ... their skin rafts would be all over the truck, correct?" Harris asked.

"Yes sir," Boyer said.

"There's no way the dog can determine when that person was in the truck or the boat, is there?" Harris prodded.

"No sir," Boyer said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/01/national/main640317.shtml

If Laci had been in the truck the dog could have picked her scent up from Scott.

[canUCme?]

California has a whole stable full of appellate lawyers who are state funded for indigent inmates. Scott filed for indigent status during the trial & it was granted.
Hi WH...
That's kind of what I thought..the more I read yesterday, the more annoyed I became.
Truthfully, I'm surprised that this tactic they're taking is legal. I would think there are laws in place to protect the public from scams like this.
Does it mean that until his appeal is completed he can't be scheduled for execution???
"C"

[canUCme?]

Did you read the comments at www.sfgate.com? Some of them made me chuckle.
Thank you for this....people are having some good entertainment over this. He just won't go away.
"C"

[Dtviewer3]

Did you explain this possibility to him?

"If someone had been in that truck within 24 hours ... their skin rafts would be all over the truck, correct?" Harris asked.

"Yes sir," Boyer said.

"There's no way the dog can determine when that person was in the truck or the boat, is there?" Harris prodded.

"No sir," Boyer said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/01/national/main640317.shtml

If Laci had been in the truck the dog could have picked her scent up from Scott.


Where are you getting your information that the dog could pick up Laci's scent from Scott?

[NatalieB]

Fran Gorman is the juror who said she would have voted guilty, not the JD/MD. He never spoke outside the court and never said how he was leaning.

One other appelate issue I have no doubt that will come up is juror #8's actions. He was dead set in getting certain people off that jury.

This is just not based on facts whatsoever. NO, the JD/MD never specifically stated that he was opting for a guilty verdict, but he did say that he wasn't sure if his decision was based on the facts of the case or it if it was because of public opinion.

Now I don't know about you, but that makes absolutely no sense if he would have been opting for not guilty.

I think you're doing nothing more than speculating when you're referring to juror #8 too. IMO, your way off the mark on that. I've read some the supposed issues at they pertain to him, but all I can tell you is, don't hold your breath waiting for the appellant courts to run to SP's aid on this issue.

[NatalieB]

That was the asst DA who called police to say she thought it was possibly a case of mistaken ID. She was pretty much blown off by the police imo.

Yeah and there is a woman who came forward and claimed that she saw Scott on the bay around Brook's Island too. She went into much detail about she and Scott stared at each other for I believe it was around 20 minutes or so. She went on to say that he was not even slightly friendly.

THEN we find out that she saw him around 5 PM.

Is this your idea of being blown off by police? If it doesn't fit the timeline, how much time and weight do you think LE should dedicate should give such tips?

[W_D_1]

Did you explain this possibility to him?

"If someone had been in that truck within 24 hours ... their skin rafts would be all over the truck, correct?" Harris asked.

"Yes sir," Boyer said.

"There's no way the dog can determine when that person was in the truck or the boat, is there?" Harris prodded.

"No sir," Boyer said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/01/national/main640317.shtml

If Laci had been in the truck the dog could have picked her scent up from Scott.[/QUOTE]


Where are you getting your information that the dog could pick up Laci's scent from Scott?


Sorry that was supposed to read from Scott's truck.

[bchand]

Went looking for some info:

www.sfgate.com

Click on "Scott Peterson family asking for donations"

349 "comments"...interesting


bearwds

They really should put up a more recent mug shot of him.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/scavenger/detail?entry_id=43707

Here's 2005 and 2007. I can't wait to see what he looks like now.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Bettychand/SPetersonbeforeandafter.jpg

[W_D_1]

This is just not based on facts whatsoever. NO, the JD/MD never specifically stated that he was opting for a guilty verdict, but he did say that he wasn't sure if his decision was based on the facts of the case or it if it was because of public opinion.

Now I don't know about you, but that makes absolutely no sense if he would have been opting for not guilty.

I think you're doing nothing more than speculating when you're referring to juror #8 too. IMO, your way off the mark on that. I've read some the supposed issues at they pertain to him, but all I can tell you is, don't hold your breath waiting for the appellant courts to run to SP's aid on this issue.


Huh? You claim it's not based on fact then admit the JD/MD never said he was voting for guilt?

This is a discussion board focused on opinions. Speculation is allowed here. I added imo to my post as well as my sig line saying I'm voicing my opinion. Now....

You might think juror #8 won't be an issue but I disagree. He wanted that jury set up the way he wanted it. He lied about one juror in his note to the judge. Another juror admitted being the one who brought up a topic 8 blamed on Falconer. His conduct was outlined in the motion to dismiss filed after the verdit and it's my belief it will be an appelate issue.

[W_D_1]

Yeah and there is a woman who came forward and claimed that she saw Scott on the bay around Brook's Island too. She went into much detail about she and Scott stared at each other for I believe it was around 20 minutes or so. She went on to say that he was not even slightly friendly.

THEN we find out that she saw him around 5 PM.

Is this your idea of being blown off by police? If it doesn't fit the timeline, how much time and weight do you think LE should dedicate should give such tips?

I was talking about a specific witness. The Asst DA. The police did not take her seriously. Now would you like to address that or spin it to some other witness because I can add another witness. The former police officer who reported he saw Laci being pulled into a van. Another witness police didn't take seriously. In fact that didn't even bother to interview him until the trial was underway.

[♫Rock*Star♫]

I was talking about a specific witness. The Asst DA. The police did not take her seriously. Now would you like to address that or spin it to some other witness because I can add another witness. The former police officer who reported he saw Laci being pulled into a van. Another witness police didn't take seriously. In fact that didn't even bother to interview him until the trial was underway.

All moot points when it comes to the convicted murderer's appeal.

I would hope you are aware of the appeal process.

The convicted murderer's appeal will only consist of possible judicial errors during the trial. Period.

All this talk about phantom witnesses means absolutely nothing when said phantom witnesses did not testify at trial.

I hereby dare anyone here to prove me wrong. :thumbup:

[jaxback]

I will ask you too like I did Rachel. Where are you getting this from? Link? Still twisting for Scott. Haven't you heard? It doesn't work.

Yeah that's the ticket: blame the police. :laugh:

Why wasn't Garagos screaming from the rooftops for his client if these witnesses were "blown off" as you say?

moo

No need to even bother to scream from the rooftops. Why not just use the power of a subpoena? :sneaky:

[taylor63]

I have something on the bottom of my shoe to send them. :laugh:

Don't his very small fan base wake up to the fact the Ps have been begging for $95,000 for yrs. Some of them claim to send small amounts of money. How come after all this time the amount has not changed? Where is the money they have collected? Don't they remember being fleeced before when the money donated didn't go to Scott, it went into the pocket of his number one fan by her very own admission.

They might as well throw their money out the window.

MOO

Their desperate he's their son. He's on death row, and of course,they are going to try and do anything to try and get him off. I have never liked the Petersons, and find some of their actions, especially the way they treated Laci's mom, and her family totally despicable, but I do feel horrible for them, and the situation their in.

[Leanne Weich]

Sorry that was supposed to read from Scott's truck.

Yes, I did ask him if Laci'had been in the truck would the dog have been able to pick up her scent? If she'd been alive, absolutely although if a SAR dog had been utilized in the truck, it should have picked up her scent from previously as well. The cadaver dog may not have picked up the scent in the vehicle if, for example, she had been dead for a very short period of time or if her body was wrapped in a tarp in the cab but had her body been put in the bed of the truck (even wrapped in a tarp) skin rafts would have escaped and been dispersed in the air - which I believe is what ultimately led Trimble to tracking her to the bay. I hope this makes sense ... I understood what he was telling me but am not sure I'm conveying it very clearly.

[Dtviewer3]

Who can judge why Geragos didn't fight harder for his client. He didn't "scream from the rooftops" when his pawn ticket was barred from evidence, either. A little inexplicable. Geragos knew then, and knows now that he wasn't a very effective advocate for Peterson.

What are you taliking about?
His pawn ticket was not barred from evidence.
Where did you get that from?

BTW, I think Geragos did the best he could with the evidence he had.

[Dtviewer3]

What happened?
There was another post with mis-information from RachelRose and it disappeared?

It was about the pawn ticket........

[taylor63]

You are better person if you feel sorry for them even though their actions from day one has been down right sickening. I for one am not one of them that have an ounce of compassion for them. They aren't worthy of it. They knew from day one Scott did this and didn't care. They were willing to lie, cheat and steal to get him off. Their behavior hasn't changed. They are once again trying to pull a fast one. I hope they get stopped in their greedy tracks because what they are trying to do is and has been illegal. Don't the supporters want to know what happened to their money they sent? It's a big secret.

MOO

I agree with what your saying to a large extent. I feel the Anthonys are like the Peterson's too that's why so many people have so much anger towards them. I agree the Peterson's are not very sympathetic people, and that they have brought alot of that on themselves. I guess I just feel sorry for anyone who has a child on death row. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

[Dtviewer3]

I agree with what your saying to a large extent. I feel the Anthonys are like the Peterson's too that's why so many people have so much anger towards them. I agree the Peterson's are not very sympathetic people, and that they have brought alot of that on themselves. I guess I just feel sorry for anyone who has a child on death row. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

I agree with the last part.
It must be very hard.
But anyone who acts like the Petersons and 'especially' the Anthony's are hard to be sympathetic towards.

[Dtviewer3]

Sorry, misspoke. I had to go back and check the pawn ticket stuff.

As I understand it, the pawn ticket was never investigated AT ALL by the police, although it appears they did have it in their evidence files. At the time of trial they still believed - erroneously - that the croton watch had sold on Ebay.


Do you have evidence that the police never investigated the pawn ticket OR that they believed it sold on ebay?
No, you dont. Just like with the rest of the mis-truths you keep posting.

BTW did you ever stop to think about WHY Geragos called a different Pawn shop owner to the stand to testify that that was, in fact, 'a' pawn ticket?
HE didnt call the pawn shop, or person who wrote the ticket for the Croton watch. He called a pawn shop person FROM A DIFFERENT pawn shop.
He knew the Croton on the receipt was NOT Lacis' and knew had he called the person who actually wrote the receipt they would testify that it was a different watch.
All the pawn shop owner that he called could say was 'yes', thats a pawn shop receipt in your hand Mr Geragos.

Hard to believe Scott supporters still bring the Croton watch up. How pathetic.......

[Details]

I was talking about a specific witness. The Asst DA. The police did not take her seriously. Now would you like to address that or spin it to some other witness because I can add another witness. The former police officer who reported he saw Laci being pulled into a van. Another witness police didn't take seriously. In fact that didn't even bother to interview him until the trial was underway.You mean the guy who saw "Laci" months after she was abducted? Problem is - Laci was dead by then - so no reason to interview him about this case. We know she was dead, because Connor had not been born - the birth canal was clear evidence of that - no way a baby can be born without it showing on the birth canal.

There were sightings of Laci all around the world - things that are known to not be Laci. Because people want to help, and because it's so easy to mix faces up.

[Dtviewer3]

You mean the guy who saw "Laci" months after she was abducted? Problem is - Laci was dead by then - so no reason to interview him about this case. We know she was dead, because Connor had not been born - the birth canal was clear evidence of that - no way a baby can be born without it showing on the birth canal.

There were sightings of Laci all around the world - things that are known to not be Laci. Because people want to help, and because it's so easy to mix faces up.

Exactly.
Just like the Elvis sightings all over the world.

Certainly doesnt mean he may be alive, or that they all need to be investigated.

[Dtviewer3]

I was talking about a specific witness. The Asst DA. The police did not take her seriously. Now would you like to address that or spin it to some other witness because I can add another witness. The former police officer who reported he saw Laci being pulled into a van. Another witness police didn't take seriously. In fact that didn't even bother to interview him until the trial was underway.

No need to spin it at all. What did they say when they were called to testify at trial?

OOpps....we know what they said, and what they didnt say.....guess Geragos didnt take them very seriously either.......


Sad sad sad.......

[Dtviewer3]

I'm googling, to refresh my mind. Using Google search terms like Geragos pawn ticket croton.

I ended up on a TruCrime discussion board . . . let's see . . . ended up back here in an old discussion, CNN, etc. If the site appears to be one-sided, I click back out.

Your ugly suspicions of my intentions kind of border on weird, IMHO.


You havent backed up a single thing you have posted.
Over and over your information has been shown to be wrong and/or mis-truths.

I'd say the suspicions are warranted at this point.

Maybe if you tried to back up some of the ridiculous claims you have made? Or at least admit that pretty much everything you have posted so far has been wrong?

[W_D_1]

All moot points when it comes to the convicted murderer's appeal.

I would hope you are aware of the appeal process.

The convicted murderer's appeal will only consist of possible judicial errors during the trial. Period.

All this talk about phantom witnesses means absolutely nothing when said phantom witnesses did not testify at trial.

I hereby dare anyone here to prove me wrong. :thumbup:

That is the first appeal only. Surely you don't think there is only one appeal? If so you may want to read up on the appelate process.

[W_D_1]

Yes, I did ask him if Laci'had been in the truck would the dog have been able to pick up her scent? If she'd been alive, absolutely although if a SAR dog had been utilized in the truck, it should have picked up her scent from previously as well. The cadaver dog may not have picked up the scent in the vehicle if, for example, she had been dead for a very short period of time or if her body was wrapped in a tarp in the cab but had her body been put in the bed of the truck (even wrapped in a tarp) skin rafts would have escaped and been dispersed in the air - which I believe is what ultimately led Trimble to tracking her to the bay. I hope this makes sense ... I understood what he was telling me but am not sure I'm conveying it very clearly.


If Laci had been alive in the truck that could explain why Trimble picked up her scent at the marina. It would certainly explain why Trimble tracked her to the bathroom at the marina. The problem with the dog tracking evidence is that Merlin also tracked Laci from the house to the Gallo winery area. Instead of following the scent Merlin's handler pulled Merlin off the track.

[W_D_1]

You mean the guy who saw "Laci" months after she was abducted? Problem is - Laci was dead by then - so no reason to interview him about this case. We know she was dead, because Connor had not been born - the birth canal was clear evidence of that - no way a baby can be born without it showing on the birth canal.

There were sightings of Laci all around the world - things that are known to not be Laci. Because people want to help, and because it's so easy to mix faces up.



The former police officer didn't see Laci months after she disappeared. He said he saw her that day. IIRC he called the tipline very early on. And Modesto Police didn't bother to investigate his claim. They blew it off because they had decided Scott was guitly from day one.

There is an excerpt from a San Fran Chronicle article at this link. In one of his motions Geragos discussed how the Modesto Police knew about the former officer since Dec 2002 but didn't interview him until days before the trial started. There is a link for the original article but my connection is too slow to open it. The witness didn't see Laci months later as you claimed.

"In the motion, Geragos alleges that the prosecution has known about the unidentified witness since December 2002 but didn't interview him until just last week -- just days before the start of the trial."

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2004/05/25/remember-laci-p.php

[NatalieB]

Huh? You claim it's not based on fact then admit the JD/MD never said he was voting for guilt?

This is a discussion board focused on opinions. Speculation is allowed here. I added imo to my post as well as my sig line saying I'm voicing my opinion. Now....

You might think juror #8 won't be an issue but I disagree. He wanted that jury set up the way he wanted it. He lied about one juror in his note to the judge. Another juror admitted being the one who brought up a topic 8 blamed on Falconer. His conduct was outlined in the motion to dismiss filed after the verdit and it's my belief it will be an appelate issue.

That is NOTHING but allegations. There has been nothing presented to show that there is ANY truth to it all. You're putting your entire opinion on something that likely isn't based on any facts whatsoever. That's certainly your choice, but IMO, it's not the most intelligent thing to do. Again I will say, do NOT hold your breath waiting.

And no, the JD/MD said he wasn't sure if his decision was based on the facts of the case, or if it was based on what the public wanted. Does that he SLIGHTLY suggest to you that he was in the not guilty corner? I don't need to speculate to come to my conclusion that he was firmly a guilty (whether for the right reason or not).

[NatalieB]

I was talking about a specific witness. The Asst DA. The police did not take her seriously. Now would you like to address that or spin it to some other witness because I can add another witness. The former police officer who reported he saw Laci being pulled into a van. Another witness police didn't take seriously. In fact that didn't even bother to interview him until the trial was underway.

Well, give me a link and we'll discuss it all you want.

[NatalieB]

Sorry, misspoke. I had to go back and check the pawn ticket stuff.

As I understand it, the pawn ticket was never investigated AT ALL by the police, although it appears they did have it in their evidence files. At the time of trial they still believed - erroneously - that the croton watch had sold on Ebay.

Why don't you brush up on the true facts, then come back and try to join in? Everything you have said is just downright wrong. That pawn slip was NEVER the Croton watch and that's why MG went nowhere with it.

[W_D_1]

Well, give me a link and we'll discuss it all you want.


I just posted one for the former police officer that police didn't bother to interview until a week before the trial started.......TWO years after he called in a tip. How do you explain that?

[W_D_1]

Not near everything, Natalie, a few things.

Most of what I have said is correct.

Why the hostility? It's like, there is a group of people who get such pleasure out of hating Scott Peterson that it is EXTREMELY frustrating for them to have other people bring up questions as to whether he's guilty.




It was always this way Rachel.

[NatalieB]

I'm googling, to refresh my mind. Using Google search terms like Geragos pawn ticket croton.

I ended up on a TruCrime discussion board . . . let's see . . . ended up back here in an old discussion, CNN, etc. If the site appears to be one-sided, I click back out.

Your ugly suspicions of my intentions kind of border on weird, IMHO.

This is the case, in my opinion, for professional juries.

I don't know whether he's guilty or not, but that trial was a circus and Geragos was head clown.

What he needs is a group of level headed, rational clear thinkers in the jury box and an honest look at the evidence. Not days and days of that whiney Amber Frey's tapes.

If there is actual forensic evidence that was ignored it needs to be tested.

snip

There wasn't more than enough evidence to convict him. There was certainly more than enough evidence to suspect him, and investigate him.

There wasn't more than enough to convict him. A jury finding of guilt isn't like transubstantiation, magically turning something into something else in one moment.

snip

Here are a few of your posts that I read before ever joining in with the discussion. You announced there was no evidence to convict SP, when in fact, you don't even know the basics of the evidence that was presented in a court of law. This is why I said you mock the justice system. You pretend like you know so much more than that jury did when EVERYTHING you've posted to this point has been false.

[NatalieB]

That is the first appeal only. Surely you don't think there is only one appeal? If so you may want to read up on the appelate process.

As I said upthread, there could be ANY number of appellate issues that arise from this case. It's no different than every other one out there. In reality, ANYTHING can be an appellate issue. It just depends on who is sitting at the helm how it plays out.

Ultimately however, I am 99.9999% convinced SP will be found guilty if he is ever tried again.

[W_D_1]

I know. It's weird.

It's like, STOP BRINGING UP ANY POSSIBILITY THAT _______ (whoever they want to hate) IS INNOCENT!!!

Possibilities need to be explored. I really don't understand the mentality that gets so angry and agitated at any information that might call a guilty verdict into question. I do understand it where their family or loved ones are concerned, those cases that specifically and very personally involve them, but not the general public in the abstract. The decisions of the courts need to be able to hold up to scrutiny by a questioning public. That's why cases are public.

I really don't get it. But then I also don't understand those long threads where people devise fictitious torturing punishments for accused perpetrators, either.


I never got that either.

[NatalieB]

The former police officer didn't see Laci months after she disappeared. He said he saw her that day. IIRC he called the tipline very early on. And Modesto Police didn't bother to investigate his claim. They blew it off because they had decided Scott was guitly from day one.

There is an excerpt from a San Fran Chronicle article at this link. In one of his motions Geragos discussed how the Modesto Police knew about the former officer since Dec 2002 but didn't interview him until days before the trial started. There is a link for the original article but my connection is too slow to open it. The witness didn't see Laci months later as you claimed.

"In the motion, Geragos alleges that the prosecution has known about the unidentified witness since December 2002 but didn't interview him until just last week -- just days before the start of the trial."

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2004/05/25/remember-laci-p.php

I can slightly recall MG's psycho babble about men in vans. So do tell us, why didn't MG call him as a witness. You called him an assistant to the DA upthread. This is calling him a peace officer. The definition of a peace officer is a police officer. So, you're saying LE ignored one of their own?

Again, why did he not testify for the defense?

BTW, this is only linking to an allegation made by MG. It establishes nothing as fact. Do you really not see the difference? Since this was from around the time of the trial, surely it's been settled by this point?

[NatalieB]

I haven't "been" following this case, I stopped following it years ago. I did watch the case, actually, when it was going on. I do admit I have some rusty details - but at the time, and still now, I believe Peterson deserves a new, fair trial with a respectable attorney and a serious, judicious atmosphere instead of the party that was going on outside and inside the courtroom at his first trial.

You don't seem to know and understand what happened with the tip line, and how many people called in tips that were completely ignored by LE because they believed 100% in Peterson's guilt and couldn't be bothered to follow up on other information.

The reason this case has captured the public is because of its confusing nature. Open and shut cases don't capture anyone's imagination, they're just sad, and the public acknowledges it and goes on and doesn't give it undue attention. This case is intriguing, and enduring in the public's eye because of the intrigue of the mystery.

And actually, I'm kind of tired of discussing it with you, too. If you can't discuss things without getting ugly, it's not really an interesting conversation.


Another lie. This was never broadcast, so you NEVER saw it at the time of the trial.

[NatalieB]

I just posted one for the former police officer that police didn't bother to interview until a week before the trial started.......TWO years after he called in a tip. How do you explain that?

So now it's 4 years later, how do you explain that?

[NatalieB]

Not near everything, Natalie, a few things.

Most of what I have said is correct.

Why the hostility? It's like, there is a group of people who get such pleasure out of hating Scott Peterson that it is EXTREMELY frustrating for them to have other people bring up questions as to whether he's guilty.


I don't believe there has been a single factual thing you have said this entire threat and I stand firm in that.

[W_D_1]

I can slightly recall MG's psycho babble about men in vans. So do tell us, why didn't MG call him as a witness. You called him an assistant to the DA upthread. This is calling him a peace officer. The definition of a peace officer is a police officer. So, you're saying LE ignored one of their own?

Again, why did he not testify for the defense?

BTW, this is only linking to an allegation made by MG. It establishes nothing as fact. Do you really not see the difference? Since this was from around the time of the trial, surely it's been settled by this point?


The asst DA was a woman, not a man. I can't find any links about her yet but since you wanted to bring up other witnesses earlier I brought one up.

No I don't think it's settled and think this man will be a part of any new trial.

[NatalieB]

I know. It's weird.

It's like, STOP BRINGING UP ANY POSSIBILITY THAT _______ (whoever they want to hate) IS INNOCENT!!!

Possibilities need to be explored. I really don't understand the mentality that gets so angry and agitated at any information that might call a guilty verdict into question. I do understand it where their family or loved ones are concerned, those cases that specifically and very personally involve them, but not the general public in the abstract. The decisions of the courts need to be able to hold up to scrutiny by a questioning public. That's why cases are public.

I really don't get it. But then I also don't understand those long threads where people devise fictitious torturing punishments for accused perpetrators, either.


We're open to possibility, what we're not open to is you or anyone else rewriting the case.

[W_D_1]

So now it's 4 years later, how do you explain that?



Has there been another trial? No but I firmly believe there will be and this man will be a witness.

[NatalieB]

By WATCH, I meant follow, Natalie. Get over yourself.

There were daily updates on Catherine Crier and Nancy Grace.

You didn't say you followed it, you said you watched it.

I can concede on this if it was simply a mistake.

BTW, Nancy Grace, Greta, and Catherine Crier never got to the heart of the actual testimony. I know, I read the transcripts and watched those shows too. I'm sure I missed many because it was ALL very time consuming, but those programs were really a joke as it related to what was really going on inside that courtroom.

[Details]

The former police officer didn't see Laci months after she disappeared. He said he saw her that day. IIRC he called the tipline very early on. And Modesto Police didn't bother to investigate his claim. They blew it off because they had decided Scott was guitly from day one.

There is an excerpt from a San Fran Chronicle article at this link. In one of his motions Geragos discussed how the Modesto Police knew about the former officer since Dec 2002 but didn't interview him until days before the trial started. There is a link for the original article but my connection is too slow to open it. The witness didn't see Laci months later as you claimed.

"In the motion, Geragos alleges that the prosecution has known about the unidentified witness since December 2002 but didn't interview him until just last week -- just days before the start of the trial."

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2004/05/25/remember-laci-p.phpA different witness than the one I was thinking of. I see you've linked to the start of the story - Gregaros alleging this person exists who saw this - but nothing more. Motion denied - and why?

Were this person credible, again, Gregaros need only have put him on the stand. Sounds to me like Gregaros knew he wasn't credible, but wanted to use his story to claim the investigation was biased, rather than as exculpatory testimony. If he was exculpatory, nothing could have stopped Gregaros from calling him. This motion sure doesn't say Gregaros is having any issue about calling him - it's claiming a bias, not requesting or being denied information about this guy, the right to call him.


Why would you think Gregaros wouldn't call all these witnesses? No defense attorney turns down a freebie, an exculpatory witness who proves their client innocent.

[W_D_1]

By WATCH, I meant follow, Natalie. Get over yourself.

There were daily updates on Catherine Crier and Nancy Grace.


We also had Beth Karas giving updates every so often so that we were able to watch.

[NatalieB]

The asst DA was a woman, not a man. I can't find any links about her yet but since you wanted to bring up other witnesses earlier I brought one up.

No I don't think it's settled and think this man will be a part of any new trial.

Well, that remains to be seen, but if MG could raise ANY doubt as to SP's guilt at trial, even if he had just found out about this guy, it's ridiculous to think he wouldn't have been part of the first trial.

All he needed was reasonable doubt, not any doubt. If this guy could provide that while standing up to cross, it wouldn't have mattered if MG had just met him 2 minutes before putting him on the stand.

I didn't see this man coming up as any of the current appellate issues though. Nor an assistant DA. Who knows though?

[Details]

Natalie - you don't remember the cop story that WD1 is describing, do you?

I do. He was an off duty cop, and he witnessed a very pregnant woman who looked very similar to Laci (in retrospect, probably not Laci) who was being held by each arm while she was let out of a van to pee by the side of the road. Then, she was loaded back into the van.

You don't remember this, do you? There was really a bit of an outcry that a police officer, off duty, would witness something like that and not investigate. And when it appeared not to be Laci, no one cared. Just some other very unimportant victim.If not Laci - then what does it matter for this trial? Or for the investigation? They got thousands of people calling, trying to help - they had to of course filter out the irrelevant and mistaken stories.

[NatalieB]

Natalie - you don't remember the cop story that WD1 is describing, do you?

I do. He was an off duty cop, and he witnessed a very pregnant woman who looked very similar to Laci (in retrospect, probably not Laci) who was being held by each arm while she was let out of a van to pee by the side of the road. Then, she was loaded back into the van.

You don't remember this, do you? There was really a bit of an outcry that a police officer, off duty, would witness something like that and not investigate. And when it appeared not to be Laci, no one cared. Just some other very unimportant victim.

I can kind of recall bits and pieces of this alleged abduction, but I don't recall it well enough to give you a play by play, no.

I know nothing arose from it. Nor have I seen it as an appellate issue, but who knows? It may happen, but then again, it may not. I'm not holding my breath. Hopefully for your sake, you're not either.

[W_D_1]

A different witness than the one I was thinking of. I see you've linked to the start of the story - Gregaros alleging this person exists who saw this - but nothing more. Motion denied - and why?

Were this person credible, again, Gregaros need only have put him on the stand. Sounds to me like Gregaros knew he wasn't credible, but wanted to use his story to claim the investigation was biased, rather than as exculpatory testimony. If he was exculpatory, nothing could have stopped Gregaros from calling him. This motion sure doesn't say Gregaros is having any issue about calling him - it's claiming a bias, not requesting or being denied information about this guy, the right to call him.


Why would you think Gregaros wouldn't call all these witnesses? No defense attorney turns down a freebie, an exculpatory witness who proves their client innocent.



I don't know why Geragos didn't call the man but that was a mistake on his part. It would have shown how the police ignored witnesses who didn't point in the direction they wanted to go.

[jaxback]

The asst DA was a woman, not a man. I can't find any links about her yet but since you wanted to bring up other witnesses earlier I brought one up.

No I don't think it's settled and think this man will be a part of any new trial.

Could you please clarify the information about this witness you brought up earlier? Did Geragos claim that he knew about this man before, during or after the trial? If it was before or during, why didn't he call him as a witness?

[W_D_1]

You didn't say you followed it, you said you watched it.

I can concede on this if it was simply a mistake.

BTW, Nancy Grace, Greta, and Catherine Crier never got to the heart of the actual testimony. I know, I read the transcripts and watched those shows too. I'm sure I missed many because it was ALL very time consuming, but those programs were really a joke as it related to what was really going on inside that courtroom.

Beth Karas, Jean Cesarez and others were inside the courtroom. They allowed us to watch the trial by giving us updates during breaks and in between.

[NatalieB]

Details - this is a question of who remembers what during the investigation.

The media links are mostly gone at the point. I am being called into question for what I REMEMBER being posted in the SacBee, which is now gone.

I also remember this off duty cop witnessing what was clearly a captive woman.

Much of what we are discussing has to do with memory, although there are few links to back that up.

Do you remember? Are you not surprised this wasn't followed up when he called the tip in? I am.


I'm not her, but what shocks me is, if MG had a witness who could raise reasonable doubt, he wouldn't have hesitated for 1 2nd to call that man to the stand.

That's the part that you just can't grasp. The fact that he didn't testify should tell you all you need to know. MG might be a fool, but he's not that damn stupid.

[NatalieB]

I don't know why Geragos didn't call the man but that was a mistake on his part. It would have shown how the police ignored witnesses who didn't point in the direction they wanted to go.

So why didn't he call him? His job was to create doubt, not prove Scott innocent. There is NO reason for MG not to call IF he was indeed credible. Have you read some of the appellate issues? Maybe you could show me where this is even mentioned as a reason for an appeal? It's not there. Why is that?

No answers are indeed answers unless you're more interested in your ideology than the truth.

[NatalieB]

I didn't miss much, Natalie. As you can tell by my post count, I waste a great deal of time on the internet.

You didn't read the transcripts, that's plenty evident. You also are grabbing your information from unreliable sources.

[W_D_1]

I'm not her, but what shocks me is, if MG had a witness who could raise reasonable doubt, he wouldn't have hesitated for 1 2nd to call that man to the stand.

That's the part that you just can't grasp. The fact that he didn't testify should tell you all you need to know. MG might be a fool, but he's not that damn stupid.

The part you are failing to grasp is it didn't matter who the man saw. The fact is he called in a tip very early on saying he saw a woman resembling Laci being pulled into a van. The police IGNORED the tip. The man wasn't even interviewed until a week before the trial started. The man was a former cop and his fellow cops couldn't even be bothered to investigate. Geragos proved his point without calling theman to the stand. The police didn't follow up on tips. They focused on Scott from day one and to hell with any other possibility.

[Dtviewer3]

The former police officer didn't see Laci months after she disappeared. He said he saw her that day. IIRC he called the tipline very early on. And Modesto Police didn't bother to investigate his claim. They blew it off because they had decided Scott was guitly from day one.

There is an excerpt from a San Fran Chronicle article at this link. In one of his motions Geragos discussed how the Modesto Police knew about the former officer since Dec 2002 but didn't interview him until days before the trial started. There is a link for the original article but my connection is too slow to open it. The witness didn't see Laci months later as you claimed.

"In the motion, Geragos alleges that the prosecution has known about the unidentified witness since December 2002 but didn't interview him until just last week -- just days before the start of the trial."

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2004/05/25/remember-laci-p.php

Yes, that blog sure looks like a reliable site:confused:

I'm sure you have more than "Geragos alleges" to back up the speculation you are posting about?

Like maybe a link to what the ex police officer said on the stand when Geragos called him to testify?

The reaching is getting more and more pathetic....surely you have more evidence to your arguments then a lawyers statements and witnesses who could clear Scott but never testified?
You must have more......

[NatalieB]

Beth Karas, Jean Cesarez and others were inside the courtroom. They allowed us to watch the trial by giving us updates during breaks and in between.

I guess that means you didn't read the transcripts, either? For anyone to believe this to be true, really doesn't know what was going on in that courtroom.

BTW, I think BK did a remarkable job, but there was no way she could cover what was going on in her segments. She touched on certain things, I don't deny that. With her limited time, she couldn't have covered it any better, but that's hardly covering it completely, gavel to gavel.

[Dtviewer3]

I haven't "been" following this case, I stopped following it years ago. I did watch the case, actually, when it was going on. I do admit I have some rusty details - but at the time, and still now, I believe Peterson deserves a new, fair trial with a respectable attorney and a serious, judicious atmosphere instead of the party that was going on outside and inside the courtroom at his first trial.

You don't seem to know and understand what happened with the tip line, and how many people called in tips that were completely ignored by LE because they believed 100% in Peterson's guilt and couldn't be bothered to follow up on other information.

The reason this case has captured the public is because of its confusing nature. Open and shut cases don't capture anyone's imagination, they're just sad, and the public acknowledges it and goes on and doesn't give it undue attention. This case is intriguing, and enduring in the public's eye because of the intrigue of the mystery.

And actually, I'm kind of tired of discussing it with you, too. If you can't discuss things without getting ugly, it's not really an interesting conversation.

And if you cant discuss the case without making stuff up its not really interesting conversation.....but, alas, you have shown you can not discuss facts....

[jaxback]

The part you are failing to grasp is it didn't matter who the man saw. The fact is he called in a tip very early on saying he saw a woman resembling Laci being pulled into a van. The police IGNORED the tip. The man wasn't even interviewed until a week before the trial started. The man was a former cop and his fellow cops couldn't even be bothered to investigate. Geragos proved his point without calling theman to the stand. The police didn't follow up on tips. They focused on Scott from day one and to hell with any other possibility.


I don't agree. If Geragos wanted to help create reasonable doubt for his client by hitting hard on the idea that there was a rush to judgment, of course he would call this man as a witness to prove that the police ignored anything that didn't fit into their scenario. jmo

[W_D_1]

Yes, that blog sure looks like a reliable site:confused:

I'm sure you have more than "Geragos alleges" to back up the speculation you are posting about?

Like maybe a link to what the ex police officer said on the stand when Geragos called him to testify?

The reaching is getting more and more pathetic....surely you have more evidence to your arguments then a lawyers statements and witnesses who could clear Scott but never testified?
You must have more......


I explained about the link on the site but since you didn't bother to click here.....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/05/25/BAGMH6RBT61.DTL

That is the actual article. If you want the motion you'll have to go to the court site and order it.

eragos didn't need to call the man to the stand. The fact that the police ignored the tip despite the fact that it wasn't the first time a van was mentioned, and the prosecutors ignored the tip proved the point he was making. The cops didn't care about other possibilities. They didn't want any leads that pointed away from Scott.

[Dtviewer3]

I know. It's weird.

It's like, STOP BRINGING UP ANY POSSIBILITY THAT _______ (whoever they want to hate) IS INNOCENT!!!

Possibilities need to be explored. I really don't understand the mentality that gets so angry and agitated at any information that might call a guilty verdict into question. I do understand it where their family or loved ones are concerned, those cases that specifically and very personally involve them, but not the general public in the abstract. The decisions of the courts need to be able to hold up to scrutiny by a questioning public. That's why cases are public.

I really don't get it. But then I also don't understand those long threads where people devise fictitious torturing punishments for accused perpetrators, either.

And I dont get why you claim you want to discuss the case, but everything you claim to know about it so far has been wrong, and you continue to spout nonsense.

How is that discussing the cae?

[NatalieB]

The part you are failing to grasp is it didn't matter who the man saw. The fact is he called in a tip very early on saying he saw a woman resembling Laci being pulled into a van. The police IGNORED the tip. The man wasn't even interviewed until a week before the trial started. The man was a former cop and his fellow cops couldn't even be bothered to investigate. Geragos proved his point without calling theman to the stand. The police didn't follow up on tips. They focused on Scott from day one and to hell with any other possibility.

You keep latching on to that as if it's established fact. It was simply a motion that MG filed and according to details, denied. That does NOT mean that there was any truth to it at all.

[W_D_1]

I guess that means you didn't read the transcripts, either? For anyone to believe this to be true, really doesn't know what was going on in that courtroom.

BTW, I think BK did a remarkable job, but there was no way she could cover what was going on in her segments. She touched on certain things, I don't deny that. With her limited time, she couldn't have covered it any better, but that's hardly covering it completely, gavel to gavel.


I read the transcripts. Theres no need for you to act like you are the only one. Updates from those inside the courtroom allowed us to see what was going on inside without being in there. Beth Karas wasn't the only person inside the courtroom BTW. Jean Caserez was, Ted Rowlands was as well as others.

[NatalieB]

You keep latching on to that as if it's established fact. It was simply a motion that MG filed and according to details, denied. That does NOT mean that there was any truth to it at all.

I'd edit this, but wouldn't want you to miss it.

MG proved NOTHING. Jurors never got to hear ANYTHING of this. Who was he trying to prove his point to, Judge D? Had he wanted to PROVE his point, he would have called the man to the stand. That didn't play out and if you were honest, you'd realize exactly why that is. The defense had EVERYTHING to gain from this if it were true. There was nothing to lose and NO legitimate reason for MG not to call him, EXCEPT, that it was a fabricated story.

[jaxback]

Natalie, sit with this for a moment. Just sit with it.

This off duty cop saw what clearly was a captive woman, who looked similar to Laci.

He called it in very quickly when Laci's disappearance was made public.

His tip was ignored. Completely ignored. He went to the media to discuss his tip, out of frustration.

If you were on these boards at that time and have a good memory, you will remember this story.

That's what's important. He had a valuable tip but since it didn't point to Scott, LE ignored it. That's the point.

You may not remember this story.

Since the OP talking about this hasn't answered a question I asked, perhaps you will.

Why didn't Geragos call this man to the stand in order to prove that LE ignored anything that didn't fit with their scenario, and try to create reasonable doubt that way?

OMG, O/T: Walter Cronkite died. :rose:

[jaxback]

You're assuming Geragos did a good job. Not that great a premise to start with. You can't really start with that as a basis for your belief - if this were all true, surely Geragos would have mentioned it.

He's a buffoon. You can't use his behavior as evidence for anything, except that he's a buffoon.

You just answered my next post. I never assumed Geragos was a good lawyer, I know he's not; but if he was so loudmouthed about this, you would think he might include it in his defense.

[NatalieB]

I read the transcripts. Theres no need for you to act like you are the only one. Updates from those inside the courtroom allowed us to see what was going on inside without being in there. Beth Karas wasn't the only person inside the courtroom BTW. Jean Caserez was, Ted Rowlands was as well as others.

I know I am not the only one. I know MANY people pitched in to help purchase those transcripts and a poster on WB's named Timex typed them up word for word and put them on a restricted site for those chipping in. It costs thousands per day to buy them... so one can only imagine how many were reading them.

I know for a fact there was also another arena of sorts that had the transcripts as a down loadable file. I asked about those transcripts repeatedly, but could never find out how to obtain them. In those transcripts, one could actually cut and paste the testimony and add it to their posts. With the Timex site, this was disabled and if you wanted to quote them at all, you had to type it all out, word for word. Here at CTV (name at the time), you were only allowed to paste X amount of the transcripts in your posts.

I am well aware that MANY others have read them.

Combining the TV programs with the transcripts and it was the best coverage one could get, but those programs really didn't discuss the majority of the evidence that was presented, or the testimony that was presented and that was a regular topic here on the boards.

[Dtviewer3]

I explained about the link on the site but since you didn't bother to click here.....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/05/25/BAGMH6RBT61.DTL

That is the actual article. If you want the motion you'll have to go to the court site and order it.

eragos didn't need to call the man to the stand. The fact that the police ignored the tip despite the fact that it wasn't the first time a van was mentioned, and the prosecutors ignored the tip proved the point he was making. The cops didn't care about other possibilities. They didn't want any leads that pointed away from Scott.

Please stop. Now I realize you are playing some kind of game.
Geragos most certainly DID need to call this man to the stand if he was reliable, because it wouldnt only raise reasonable doubt, but would absolutley show Scott couldnt have commited the crime.
Please.

I can just hear the defense lawyers conversation.
Geragos: "good news. We have a ex-police officer that saw someone else abduct Laci!!!"
Geragos partner:"Great, that clears Scott. Hes innocent! Should we call him to testify first?"
Geragos: "No! I have a better idea! We'll not call him and just mention that the police ignored his story and that will raise reasonable doubt in the case!"
Gerago partner:" Brilliant!!"

My sides are hurting from laughing at that ridiculous 'theory' as to why he wasnt called....

[W_D_1]

You keep latching on to that as if it's established fact. It was simply a motion that MG filed and according to details, denied. That does NOT mean that there was any truth to it at all.



Did you bother to read my first sentence? I said it didn't matter who he saw. It could have been the Virgin Mary. The point is that the police didn't bother to investigate a sighting that included a van. Do you get why that is significant? Diane Jenkins told police she saw a van with suspicious men across the street from Laci's home the day she disappeared. Since it didn't point to Scott they blew her off too.

[Dtviewer3]

Natalie, sit with this for a moment. Just sit with it.

This off duty cop saw what clearly was a captive woman, who looked similar to Laci.

He called it in very quickly when Laci's disappearance was made public.

His tip was ignored. Completely ignored. He went to the media to discuss his tip, out of frustration.

If you were on these boards at that time and have a good memory, you will remember this story.

That's what's important. He had a valuable tip but since it didn't point to Scott, LE ignored it. That's the point.

You may not remember this story.

IF it was valuable he would have been called to testify for the defense.
Obviously it wasnt reliable or he would have testified.
Obviously.

[Details]

Did you bother to read my first sentence? I said it didn't matter who he saw. It could have been the Virgin Mary. The point is that the police didn't bother to investigate a sighting that included a van. Do you get why that is significant? Diane Jenkins told police she saw a van with suspicious men across the street from Laci's home the day she disappeared. Since it didn't point to Scott they blew her off too.It completely matters what he saw - and the entire content of his report. If it was the Virgin Mary - then not investigating it doesn't mean they were biased, means they were ignoring flake reports. If it was before Laci was established to have left the house - then it was an erroneous report, not worth investigating. If it was a different van than what Diane Jenkins saw - then it's not nearly as important.

A motion is proof of nothing without the facts to back it up - and you've given none of those.

[NatalieB]

Natalie, sit with this for a moment. Just sit with it.

This off duty cop saw what clearly was a captive woman, who looked similar to Laci.

He called it in very quickly when Laci's disappearance was made public.

His tip was ignored. Completely ignored. He went to the media to discuss his tip, out of frustration.

If you were on these boards at that time and have a good memory, you will remember this story.

That's what's important. He had a valuable tip but since it didn't point to Scott, LE ignored it. That's the point.

You may not remember this story.

I don't recall this man going to the media, but so what if he did? Why don't you show me where it's established fact in a court of law? He and MG could have concocted the entire story for all you know. His testimony NEVER stood up to scrutiny on examination or cross examination, so until that happens, it's not established fact.

Why don't you step back and think about that for awhile?

The defense had everything to gain and NOTHING to lose, yet decided not to call this supposed LE officer to the stand. You can twist that till you're the best contortionist in the world, but that's not going to change that fact one little bit.

[W_D_1]

Please stop. Now I realize you are playing some kind of game.Geragos most certainly DID need to call this man to the stand if he was reliable, because it wouldnt only raise reasonable doubt, but would absolutley show Scott couldnt have commited the crime.
Please.

I can just hear the defense lawyers conversation.
Geragos: "good news. We have a ex-police officer that saw someone else abduct Laci!!!"
Geragos partner:"Great, that clears Scott. Hes innocent! Should we call him to testify first?"
Geragos: "No! I have a better idea! We'll not call him and just mention that the police ignored his story and that will raise reasonable doubt in the case!"
Gerago partner:" Brilliant!!"

My sides are hurting from laughing at that ridiculous 'theory' as to why he wasnt called....


Get over yourself.

Geragos didn't have to call any witnesses. The state had to prove Scott's guilt without reasonable doubt. The fact that the police ignored several witnesses combined with a witness who saw suspicious men, who have never been found, across the street from Laci's home the day she disappeared was reasonable doubt to some people.

With a couple of jurors out of the way the jury was set to give Sharon Rocha the verdict she wanted. That is MY OPINION as well as others. You might not like it but you can't change it.

[Dtviewer3]

I think you miss a lot of things, dt.

You also have appeared to have missed this cops tip. Again, I remember something reported in the SACBEE that you don't.

You are welcome to disprove any of my posts with facts whenever you would like. I'll be right here waiting....

(Its getting boring proving yours wrong)

[jaxback]

I think Geragos was trying to keep this trial as short as he could, and the prosecution was trying to keep it as long as they could.

I think that's the only answer. Geragos - through ineptitude, or plan - didn't call all that many witnesses.

SAD about Walter Cronkite. What a voice of reason.

I'm not trying to get into a fight with you, RachelRose, but that simply does not make any sense to me. Why on earth would Geragos want to keep the trial as short as possible?

btw, there's a thead for Cronkite in breaking news.

[Details]

I don't know why Geragos didn't call the man but that was a mistake on his part. It would have shown how the police ignored witnesses who didn't point in the direction they wanted to go.You really think defense lawyers like losing high profile cases? And when he's pulling out all the stops, he doesn't bother bringing up the one and only exculpatory witness he has? Not even remotely possible, IMO - not even of a naive law school student would I believe that.

More likely - the witness would have proven to be a flake of one type or another, and the jury would have seen why the police did not take his report seriously. He'd have to be pretty bad, not to be called, as the one and only possible witness to say SP just plain didn't do it.

[NatalieB]

Since the OP talking about this hasn't answered a question I asked, perhaps you will.

Why didn't Geragos call this man to the stand in order to prove that LE ignored anything that didn't fit with their scenario, and try to create reasonable doubt that way?

OMG, O/T: Walter Cronkite died. :rose:

OMG, that's awful. We're losing so many big stars lately.:rose:

[NatalieB]

I think Geragos was trying to keep this trial as short as he could, and the prosecution was trying to keep it as long as they could.

I think that's the only answer. Geragos - through ineptitude, or plan - didn't call all that many witnesses.

SAD about Walter Cronkite. What a voice of reason.

Geragos was trying to suck this trial for all it was worth. To think he was trying to shorten it is absurd, IMO. He LOVED the attention.

[NatalieB]

Did you bother to read my first sentence? I said it didn't matter who he saw. It could have been the Virgin Mary. The point is that the police didn't bother to investigate a sighting that included a van. Do you get why that is significant? Diane Jenkins told police she saw a van with suspicious men across the street from Laci's home the day she disappeared. Since it didn't point to Scott they blew her off too.

There has been nothing to prove that he actually called anyone at anytime. Unless of course, you have that recorded conversation and it's dated?

If it's all so accurate, why did he not testify? There is only one logical conclusion. You can spin it till the cows come home, but that's the bottom line.

[Dtviewer3]

Get over yourself.

Geragos didn't have to call any witnesses. The state had to prove Scott's guilt without reasonable doubt. The fact that the police ignored several witnesses combined with a witness who saw suspicious men, who have never been found, across the street from Laci's home the day she disappeared was reasonable doubt to some people.

With a couple of jurors out of the way the jury was set to give Sharon Rocha the verdict she wanted. That is MY OPINION as well as others. You might not like it but you can't change it.

I dont have to like it. The State did in fact prove Scotts guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why Scotts on Death Row. He was found guilty.

If there was a witness who could testify that someone else, that he witnessed, abducted Laci, then yes, Geragos certainly did have to call him.
I cant believe you even would make such a ridiculous statement.

[NatalieB]

I think you miss a lot of things, dt.

You also have appeared to have missed this cops tip. Again, I remember something reported in the SACBEE that you don't.

I hope your ribs stop hurting from all your guffawing.

If it was in there, that doesn't mean it was true. It only means the reporter who heard the story printed that he'd heard as much.

It was NEVER shown or proven in a court of law.

[NatalieB]

Please stop. Now I realize you are playing some kind of game.
Geragos most certainly DID need to call this man to the stand if he was reliable, because it wouldnt only raise reasonable doubt, but would absolutley show Scott couldnt have commited the crime.
Please.

I can just hear the defense lawyers conversation.
Geragos: "good news. We have a ex-police officer that saw someone else abduct Laci!!!"
Geragos partner:"Great, that clears Scott. Hes innocent! Should we call him to testify first?"
Geragos: "No! I have a better idea! We'll not call him and just mention that the police ignored his story and that will raise reasonable doubt in the case!"
Gerago partner:" Brilliant!!"

My sides are hurting from laughing at that ridiculous 'theory' as to why he wasnt called....

BTW:
I loved your post. :)

[W_D_1]

You really think defense lawyers like losing high profile cases? And when he's pulling out all the stops, he doesn't bother bringing up the one and only exculpatory witness he has? Not even remotely possible, IMO - not even of a naive law school student would I believe that.

More likely - the witness would have proven to be a flake of one type or another, and the jury would have seen why the police did not take his report seriously. He'd have to be pretty bad, not to be called, as the one and only possible witness to say SP just plain didn't do it.



The witness would have proven to be a flake? How do you figure that since the police IGNORED his tip? It didn't point in the direction the police wanted to go.

[Dtviewer3]

You don't recall a lot of things, and neither do your "friends" on this board. That's what I'm saying.

You don't remember. I do.

Then prove it. Its that SIMPLE.

I have backed up every one of my posts.
You have not backed up a single one of yours.
As a matter of fact, posters have proven almost every one of your posts wrong so far.

Why is that?

[W_D_1]

Then prove it. Its that SIMPLE.

I have backed up every one of my posts.
You have not backed up a single one of yours.
As a matter of fact, posters have proven almost every one of your posts wrong so far.

Why is that?

She doesn't need to prove it. I did for her. I brought up the former police officer and you claimed he didn't see Laci until months after she disappeared. You were wrong but instead of admitting it you claimed it was another person.

[Dtviewer3]

The witness would have proven to be a flake? How do you figure that since the police IGNORED his tip? It didn't point in the direction the police wanted to go.

He figureded that out since the defense didnt feel the witness was reliable enough to call either.

Its very simple W_D_1.

Very very simple.......

[W_D_1]

He figureded that out since the defense didnt feel the witness was reliable enough to call either.

Its very simple W_D_1.

Very very simple.......


And not necessarily true. No wonder you think the trial proved guilt. The defense doesn't have to prove anything. They don't have to call any witnesses.

[NatalieB]

Get over yourself.

Geragos didn't have to call any witnesses. The state had to prove Scott's guilt without reasonable doubt. The fact that the police ignored several witnesses combined with a witness who saw suspicious men, who have never been found, across the street from Laci's home the day she disappeared was reasonable doubt to some people.

With a couple of jurors out of the way the jury was set to give Sharon Rocha the verdict she wanted. That is MY OPINION as well as others. You might not like it but you can't change it.

You're right, MG didn't have to call anyone. The state did a fine job of proving SP guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and they even obtained a death sentence.

MG NEVER had to prove SP innocent. If he could have raised reasonable doubt, the state would have NEVER gotten a conviction. If this man's story was true, it would have created that reasonable doubt.

The fact that he wasn't called to establish that doubt, says it all. If you can't even grasp this much, it's no wonder you believe SP is innocent, or at minimum, are unconvinced of his guilt.

[Dtviewer3]

She doesn't need to prove it. I did for her. I brought up the former police officer and you claimed he didn't see Laci until months after she disappeared. You were wrong but instead of admitting it you claimed it was another person.

Maybe you need to go back to the begining and read s..l..o..w..l..y.

I never ever said anything about the witness seeing Laci months later.
Never.

if you cant follow here, no wonder the evidence is so difficult....

[Tracian]

I think Scott is right where he belongs.

While it is true that the defense does not have to 'put on a case' if Geragos had witnesses that were willing to testify, in regards to someone that looked like Laci being forced into a van, then he should have put them on the stand.

[Dtviewer3]

Because you and your friends are bullies who won't post links when asked to, and you deride me for not posting links on my behalf?

just a guess, dt.

I'm kind of on to you now.

*searches for that ignore button*

I have posted links over and over again. Go ahead and show me where a link was requested that i didnt provide one. You cant because I have provided links to everything I have posted.

Ill be waiting......

[NatalieB]

You don't recall a lot of things, and neither do your "friends" on this board. That's what I'm saying.

You don't remember. I do.

whoopie do, you remember something that was never established as fact. I recall the rantings of MG, but that's about it. He also went on and on, and on, and on, about the transients too. I didn't read the SacBee much, sorry.

It's probably the only thing you do remember because established facts aren't your strong suit.

[Details]

She doesn't need to prove it. I did for her. I brought up the former police officer and you claimed he didn't see Laci until months after she disappeared. You were wrong but instead of admitting it you claimed it was another person.That would be me. And I do recall sightings of Laci, one involving a van, after all that time.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Sorry..I havent given this case much thought since the conviction..and as to his wanting to appeal a death penalty..Yikes..that is what I would expect..as to reasonabke appellate issues..doubt it..What I really find amusing..is Scotty supporters..keep claiming all sorts of defense malfeasents....nope..Garego's did not call those witnesses because he knew they would be blown out of the water..and beides..it was the over-all evidence that proved the case..I wont be hanging around..so dont even bother to bait or bash my opinion...I just thought I would put in my two cents worth!

Oh..BTW..Im not impressed with the soliciting for money's for his appeal..I was given the idea (past few years) that his appeal was already a slam dunk...however..as far as I know..he doesnt even have an "Appeallate Team" in place..

I will also add..Scott should be ashamed for causing his folks to loose everything they own (IMO) they have no more money to give to him..Scott wiped them out..Shame on him!!

LMS:huh:

[W_D_1]

Could you please clarify the information about this witness you brought up earlier? Did Geragos claim that he knew about this man before, during or after the trial? If it was before or during, why didn't he call him as a witness?



It took me awhile to find the link I was looking for. Geragos found out about the witness a week or 2 before the trial started. The prosecution waited until then to turn the report over to the defense even though the witness was known by the prosecution since 2002.


"Just last week the prosecution turned over reports disclosing an interview with a witness who saw Laci Peterson being pulled into a van by at least two men," states the motion. This eyewitness, who has been a sworn peace officer, has apparently been known to the prosecution since December of 2002 yet he was only interviewed within the last week.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat531.html

It wasn't the first instance of misconduct or the last. The judge had to admonish the prosecution in open court for discovery violations. He struck testimony of one prosecution witness because of the prosecutions withholding evidence.

[NatalieB]

You may not have followed this trial, Natalie.

The prosecution took FOREVER, days and days and days of boring Amber Frey conversations, and the defense was very quick, with a surprising wrap up.

Well, I wouldn't go straight to quick. The wrap up sure was surprising though. We had Cyril Wecht, and Dr. Henry Lee waiting in the wings (actually flew in to testify), and at the last minute, MG decides not to call them. Hmmmm, wonder why that is?

Probably after the good Doc begging for some slack, MG decided not to ruin the other two's careers (which they've managed to ruin on their own, IMO). Wecht in PA and Henry Lee in the Spector case. Gotta love em.....NOT

If however that's your idea of quick, well...........

[W_D_1]

Maybe you need to go back to the begining and read s..l..o..w..l..y.

I never ever said anything about the witness seeing Laci months later.
Never.

if you cant follow here, no wonder the evidence is so difficult....


Sorry. I knew it was a nic that started with d.

[NatalieB]

BTW, the cross of Amber Frey took MG 2 days to complete. Is that your idea of her being unimportant, Rachel? Is it your idea of fast? That's just the initial cross.

[Dtviewer3]

Sorry. I knew it was a nic that started with d.

Accepted.
Now in your great zest to protect and defend RachelRose maybe you could ask her to provide some proof to her claims or at least acknowledg when everyone of them are proven to be mis-truths?

It may make the debating a little more realistic and interesting.....

[NatalieB]

The witness would have proven to be a flake? How do you figure that since the police IGNORED his tip? It didn't point in the direction the police wanted to go.

How do you know for a fact that he ever called anyone? Bottom line is, you don't.

[W_D_1]

You're right, MG didn't have to call anyone. The state did a fine job of proving SP guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and they even obtained a death sentence.

MG NEVER had to prove SP innocent. If he could have raised reasonable doubt, the state would have NEVER gotten a conviction. If this man's story was true, it would have created that reasonable doubt.

The fact that he wasn't called to establish that doubt, says it all. If you can't even grasp this much, it's no wonder you believe SP is innocent, or at minimum, are unconvinced of his guilt.


The state of California obtained a conviction of Cynthia Sommer too. I wouldn't be too celebratory about convictions considering a woman was convicted of murdering a man who wasn't even murdered.

You may not believe it but MG's cross examination of witnesses proved reasonable doubt to quite a few people. Not everyone bought the show the prosecution put on.

[NatalieB]

She doesn't need to prove it. I did for her. I brought up the former police officer and you claimed he didn't see Laci until months after she disappeared. You were wrong but instead of admitting it you claimed it was another person.

You didn't prove that there was any validity to the assertion at all.

[W_D_1]

Accepted.
Now in your great zest to protect and defend RachelRose maybe you could ask her to provide some proof to her claims or at least acknowledg when everyone of them are proven to be mis-truths?

It may make the debating a little more realistic and interesting.....


Anyone who has followed this case knows a lot of links are no longer available. You can't realistically expect someone to prove everything they say.

I have a bunch of links saved that are no longer available. That is why it took me so long to answer jax' post. I had to find new links because the ones I have are gone.

[NatalieB]

Because you and your friends are bullies who won't post links when asked to, and you deride me for not posting links on my behalf?

just a guess, dt.

I'm kind of on to you now.

*searches for that ignore button*

Now this one has me, ROFLMAO

You gotta be kidding me. Are you really this disingenuous?

[Details]

The witness would have proven to be a flake? How do you figure that since the police IGNORED his tip? It didn't point in the direction the police wanted to go.The police ignored him, Gregaros ignored him. Pretty good indication neither took him seriously.

[Dtviewer3]

Anyone who has followed this case knows a lot of links are no longer available. You can't realistically expect someone to prove everything they say.

I have a bunch of links saved that are no longer available. That is why it took me so long to answer jax' post. I had to find new links because the ones I have are gone.

Thats understandable, as I also have had to dig deep for any links I have found.

But I HAVE provided links everytime one has been requested of me, and even have provided links disproving all that RachelRose has posted.

I still have yet to see Rachel back up any of her claims.....

[NatalieB]

And not necessarily true. No wonder you think the trial proved guilt. The defense doesn't have to prove anything. They don't have to call any witnesses.

You too, are you really this disingenuous?

The state called the witnesses that proved SP's guilt. That's why they received a conviction, hello?

The defense didn't have to call anyone. That's certainly true, but if the state does its job, one would think even the most simple minded individual would understand that the defense should call someone to counter the state's case if they have ANY hope of creating reasonable doubt.

[W_D_1]

I think Scott is right where he belongs.

While it is true that the defense does not have to 'put on a case' if Geragos had witnesses that were willing to testify, in regards to someone that looked like Laci being forced into a van, then he should have put them on the stand.




Hi Tracian.

How was Geragos supposed to call some witnesses when he didn't find out about them until the trial was starting? And in one instance (Aponte documents) he didn't find out information until the trial was just about over.

The judge struck testimony because Distaso played fast and loose with the discovery laws. When he struck the testimony he admitted it wasn't the first time the prosecution had withheld evidence.

[W_D_1]

The police ignored him, Gregaros ignored him. Pretty good indication neither took him seriously.



Geragos didn't find out about him until right before the trial started. The prosecution withheld that information for almost 2 years. Ask yourself why.

[W_D_1]

How do you know for a fact that he ever called anyone? Bottom line is, you don't.



Huh? The prosecution admitted he called the tipline. They interviewed him a couple of weeks before the trial started.

[Dtviewer3]

Hi Tracian.

How was Geragos supposed to call some witnesses when he didn't find out about them until the trial was starting? And in one instance (Aponte documents) he didn't find out information until the trial was just about over.

The judge struck testimony because Distaso played fast and loose with the discovery laws. When he struck the testimony he admitted it wasn't the first time the prosecution had withheld evidence.

Again, PLEASE tell me you are kiding.

Geragos could have called the witness had he found out about him on the last day of the trial.

i dont mind discussing the case but I refuse to entertain such ridiculous theories....

"Geragos wanted a 'quick' trial..."
"Geragos didnt call an exculpatory witness because he wanted to attempt 'only' to raise reasonable doubt...."

Comeon...you must be able to do better than that......

[W_D_1]

Again, PLEASE tell me you are kiding.

Geragos could have called the witness had he found out about him on the last day of the trial.

i dont mind discussing the case but I refuse to entertain such ridiculous theories....

"Geragos wanted a 'quick' trial..."
"Geragos didnt call an exculpatory witness because he wanted to attempt 'only' to raise reasonable doubt...."

Comeon...you must be able to do better than that......



No I'm not kiding (sp). The defense has to investigate just like the police. That was information that should have been turned over to the defense LONG BEFORE it was.


Point out one post where I said the defense wanted a quick trial.

[NatalieB]

It took me awhile to find the link I was looking for. Geragos found out about the witness a week or 2 before the trial started. The prosecution waited until then to turn the report over to the defense even though the witness was known by the prosecution since 2002.


"Just last week the prosecution turned over reports disclosing an interview with a witness who saw Laci Peterson being pulled into a van by at least two men," states the motion. This eyewitness, who has been a sworn peace officer, has apparently been known to the prosecution since December of 2002 yet he was only interviewed within the last week.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat531.html

It wasn't the first instance of misconduct or the last. The judge had to admonish the prosecution in open court for discovery violations. He struck testimony of one prosecution witness because of the prosecutions withholding evidence.

and at the end of the day, said witness still did not testify on Scott's behalf. If this is true, this could have been Scott's ticket out of the slammer, yet, he still wasn't called.

This is not established fact. Geragos could have made it established fact (if it were true), yet choose not to. He's far from the best attorney on the planet and I wouldn't even go straight to good when describing him, but only the worst on the planet wouldn't have called this man in this situation. Sorry, MG isn't the worst on the planet.

I do recall talk about MG trying to buy a van. Does anyone remember that? He also did purchase a boat (wrong kind of course), but didn't he look into buying a van?

[Dtviewer3]

Your post, in this thread, #113.

You refused to post a link to where Scott "claimed" two men had made fun of his ability to take the boat back out of the water.

Still waiting, Dt.

You asked me for a link where I claimed there were two guys witnessing him drawing the boat out, as reported in the SacBee, you countered with it was Scott's story written in the SacBee.

Post a link. Post a link where Scott claimed two men had derided him for his inexperience.

I'll be waiting.

Good grief Rachel.

go back to post #140. Where I posted not one, but THREE links......

Ill be waiting.....

(When you are done there maybe you will post some of the links you have been asked for.)

[Dtviewer3]

No I'm not kiding (sp). The defense has to investigate just like the police. That was information that should have been turned over to the defense LONG BEFORE it was.


Point out one post where I said the defense wanted a quick trial.

You didnt. That was Rachel. I was talking about the Scott is not guilty posters.

[NatalieB]

The state of California obtained a conviction of Cynthia Sommer too. I wouldn't be too celebratory about convictions considering a woman was convicted of murdering a man who wasn't even murdered.

You may not believe it but MG's cross examination of witnesses proved reasonable doubt to quite a few people. Not everyone bought the show the prosecution put on.

You may not believe it, but the 12 people who did matter, didn't buy the reasonable doubt theory.

We'll await the appeals. I have every confidence in the world that the next 12 (if that day should arise) will also reject reasonable doubt.

[W_D_1]

and at the end of the day, said witness still did not testify on Scott's behalf. If this is true, this could have been Scott's ticket out of the slammer, yet, he still wasn't called.

This is not established fact. Geragos could have made it established fact (if it were true), yet choose not to. He's far from the best attorney on the planet and I wouldn't even go straight to good when describing him, but only the worst on the planet wouldn't have called this man in this situation. Sorry, MG isn't the worst on the planet.

I do recall talk about MG trying to buy a van. Does anyone remember that? He also did purchase a boat (wrong kind of course), but didn't he look into buying a van?


You keep trying to insinuate the witness doesn't exist. How do you explain the prosecution interviewing a witness you claim doesn't exist? Kinda hard to take you serious when you keep trying to claim he didn't exist.

[W_D_1]

You didnt. That was Rachel. I was talking about the Scott is not guilty posters.


I'm not lumping all the guilties together so why don't you stop lumping us together. I'm responsible for what I post, no one else and I apologized for the mistake I made with nics.

[Dtviewer3]

I'm not lumping all the guilties together so why don't you stop lumping us together. I'm responsible for what I post, no one else and I apologized for the mistake I made with nics.

Guess I got confused when I asked Rachel a question and you jumped in with this:
Originally posted by W_D_1:
"She doesn't need to prove it. I did for her."

:wink:

[NatalieB]

Hi Tracian.

How was Geragos supposed to call some witnesses when he didn't find out about them until the trial was starting? And in one instance (Aponte documents) he didn't find out information until the trial was just about over.

The judge struck testimony because Distaso played fast and loose with the discovery laws. When he struck the testimony he admitted it wasn't the first time the prosecution had withheld evidence.

OMG, do you really believe he couldn't have called this guy? That's absurd. Of course he could have IF he WANTED to. The bottom line is, he choose not to.

[NatalieB]

Your post, in this thread, #113.

You refused to post a link to where Scott "claimed" two men had made fun of his ability to take the boat back out of the water.

Still waiting, Dt.

You asked me for a link where I claimed there were two guys witnessing him drawing the boat out, as reported in the SacBee, you countered with it was Scott's story written in the SacBee.

Post a link. Post a link where Scott claimed two men had derided him for his inexperience.

I'll be waiting.

We're still waiting on you, who brought the subject up, to get a link to show he was seen. You refused to do that.

[W_D_1]

Thi link has details about the asst DA. Grogan testified that the sightings weren't a priority.


She called police after Laci vanished to report that the alleged abductors "might have mistaken Laci Peterson for her, correct?" Geragos asked the detective.

"Correct," Grogan replied.

Geragos then added that authorities never thoroughly followed up on the tip.

further in the article....

"Is it a fair statement that nobody contacted him ... until approximately six weeks ago during this trial?" Geragos asked.

"That's correct," Grogan replied. "I can't say that the sightings were automatically a priority for us at that time."

http://www.ktvu.com/news/3762366/detail.html

[Dtviewer3]

Uh, sorry. There is no article in the SacBee in your links, that I can find - although only the 3rd link was easy to follow - stating Scott had created these witnesses.

Find a link, please, to where Scott claims two men laughed at him for his inability to pull the boat out of the water, as I had stated was written in the SacBee.

Waiting, but not holding my breath.

What are you talking about???????????????

YOU claimed there was an article in the SacBee with 2 men who claimed to have seen Scott at the marina.
YOU could not prove it, or provide a link.

I stated that Scott is the only one who said that 2 men saw him. I NEVER EVER said Scott said it to the SacBee, because he DID NOT.
That is what he told LE. And that is what I provided. Links that SCOTT was the one who stated about the 2 men seeing him.

Good grief Rachel....you are killing me.

And once again, you have failed to back up your claim.

[NatalieB]

Huh? The prosecution admitted he called the tipline. They interviewed him a couple of weeks before the trial started.

Excuse me? I didn't read that in the link where the state admitted as much. I read the link that this was in MG"s motion. Do you have the state's response to the motion somewhere in your links there?

[W_D_1]

OMG, do you really believe he couldn't have called this guy? That's absurd. Of course he could have IF he WANTED to. The bottom line is, he choose not to.


I can't help but notice you keep ignoring the fact that the prosecution withheld evidence from the defense. Why is that?

[Dtviewer3]

I already said I don't have a link.

They expired.

*volleys back into your court, for a link that your "team" claims* rolls eyes again. natalie, you're kind of not understanding this thread.

Again, are you kidding me?

You have not provided ONE link to any of your claims.
You have not acknowledged the numerous times you have been proven wrong.
And you havent been able to follow along with the thread.

[W_D_1]

Excuse me? I didn't read that in the link where the state admitted as much. I read the link that this was in MG"s motion. Do you have the state's response to the motion somewhere in your links there?



"Is it a fair statement that nobody contacted him ... until approximately six weeks ago during this trial?" Geragos asked.

"That's correct," Grogan replied. "I can't say that the sightings were automatically a priority for us at that time."

http://www.ktvu.com/news/3762366/detail.html


The former police officer existed, called the tipline and was IGNORED.

[NatalieB]

You keep trying to insinuate the witness doesn't exist. How do you explain the prosecution interviewing a witness you claim doesn't exist? Kinda hard to take you serious when you keep trying to claim he didn't exist.

I'm not insinuating that the witness doesn't exist, I'm insinuating that it's equally as possible that the story is fabricated from beginning to end to benefit the defense.

You can't prove otherwise. There are NO facts that this happened. At least, no facts have been shown in this thread.

You've not shown a single response from the state or the courts when MG addressed the court. All you've shown is the motion MG filed. He then CHOSE not to have this witness testify, so something isn't adding up.

[jaxback]

"Is it a fair statement that nobody contacted him ... until approximately six weeks ago during this trial?" Geragos asked.

"That's correct," Grogan replied. "I can't say that the sightings were automatically a priority for us at that time."

http://www.ktvu.com/news/3762366/detail.html


The former police officer existed, called the tipline and was IGNORED.

I think we all understand that now. But it still doesn't make any sense for Geragos not to call this former police officer to the stand, no matter when he found out about the interview. The only conclusion I can come to is that Geragos must have decided that this man's testimony wasn't credible or correct enough to help the defense. Either that or Geragos is an even worse lawyer than anyone imagined.

[NatalieB]

Uh, sorry. There is no article in the SacBee in your links, that I can find - although only the 3rd link was easy to follow - stating Scott had claimed there were witnesses to his boat launch.

Find a link, please, to where Scott claims two men laughed at him for his inability to pull the boat out of the water, as I had stated was written in the SacBee.

That's what you stated. That there was NO article in the SacBee (incredibly arrogant, IMHO, to claim there is no article just because you don't know it) with men who were claiming to witness Scott pulling the boat out of the water and laughing at his inexperience.

Waiting, but not holding my breath.

You were first person called on this entire thread to back up what you said. You replied that you will not be googling for anyone and won't participate (or something to that extent) in anyone who is being spoon fed their opinion.

YOU NEVER BACKED A SINGLE THING THAT YOU SAID IN THIS THREAD UP. YOU HAVE BEEN CALLED ON IT TIME AND TIME AGAIN, YET YOU DOWNRIGHT REFUSE.

THEN, you had the nerve to start asking other posters for links. Or, did you have a little too much to drink last night, or perhaps last night AND tonight, because that's the way your posts come off to me.

[W_D_1]

I'm not insinuating that the witness doesn't exist, I'm insinuating that it's equally as possible that the story is fabricated from beginning to end to benefit the defense.

You can't prove otherwise. There are NO facts that this happened. At least, no facts have been shown in this thread.

You've not shown a single response from the state or the courts when MG addressed the court. All you've shown is the motion MG filed. He then CHOSE not to have this witness testify, so something isn't adding up.


I just posted a link where Grogan admits no one contacted him until the trial was starting. Now why do you suppose Grogan contacted him? Was Grogan psychic? Did he contact random people he thought may have witnessed something? Or was he contacting someone who called in a tip?

I bolded Grogan's reply but I should have bolded the scary part of his reply....they decided within a week thaat sightings weren't a priority.

[W_D_1]

I think we all understand that now. But it still doesn't make any sense for Geragos not to call this former police officer to the stand, no matter when he found out about the interview. The only conclusion I can come to is that Geragos must have decided that this man's testimony wasn't credible or correct enough to help the defense. Either that or Geragos is an even worse lawyer than anyone imagined.


Or, with the trial underway, he didn't have enough time to investigate the tip which is why I think the prosecution didn't turn it over to the defense.

[Dtviewer3]

Or, with the trial underway, he didn't have enough time to investigate the tip which is why I think the prosecution didn't turn it over to the defense.

Again W_D_1, and I'm not picking on you, but that is ridiculous.

There is no defense lawyer alive who wouldnt make time to investigate a possible exculpatory witness. None.

Geragos could have even requested the trial be delayed while he investigated this witness.
And yes, a lawyer can request a delay EVEN during a trial.

[W_D_1]

Again W_D_1, and I'm not picking on you, but that is ridiculous.

There is no defense lawyer alive who wouldnt make time to investigate a possible exculpatory witness. None.

Geragos could have even requested the trial be delayed while he investigated this witness.
And yes, a lawyer can request a delay EVEN during a trial.


Geragos requested a delay when the Aponte information came out, he was denied. Judge Delucchi didn't grant defense requests. He should have granted a mistrial on several occassions but again, he denied.

[NatalieB]

Thi link has details about the asst DA. Grogan testified that the sightings weren't a priority.


She called police after Laci vanished to report that the alleged abductors "might have mistaken Laci Peterson for her, correct?" Geragos asked the detective.

"Correct," Grogan replied.

Geragos then added that authorities never thoroughly followed up on the tip.

further in the article....

"Is it a fair statement that nobody contacted him ... until approximately six weeks ago during this trial?" Geragos asked.

"That's correct," Grogan replied. "I can't say that the sightings were automatically a priority for us at that time."

http://www.ktvu.com/news/3762366/detail.html


I do believe you NEVER read the trial transcripts. Had you done so, you would NEVER be linking to any such article as this one. During the direct examination, there was a map put up and it was marked with EVERY tip that came in. It was shown when, why, and how each of the tips were investigated and why others were not. There were over 6000 tips and there were pins on that board from many other state's even. EVERYONE accounted for and explained.

You go read that testimony and get back with me. You're trying to retry this case based on media reports. Jurors went by the actual testimony. So sorry you did not.

[NatalieB]

I do believe you NEVER read the trial transcripts. Had you done so, you would NEVER be linking to any such article as this one. During the direct examination, there was a map put up and it was marked with EVERY tip that came in. It was shown when, why, and how each of the tips were investigated and why others were not. There were over 6000 tips and there were pins on that board from many other state's even. EVERYONE accounted for and explained.

You go read that testimony and get back with me. You're trying to retry this case based on media reports. Jurors went by the actual testimony. So sorry you did not.

When you're on that stand, you're allowed to answer the question exactly how it's asked. You're not allowed to add to it. This is how defense attorney's try to mislead, but you ACTUALLY have to watch the state at bat afterward where they will clarify anything that they feel is necessary.

You however, only want one side of the coin.

[NatalieB]

I can't help but notice you keep ignoring the fact that the prosecution withheld evidence from the defense. Why is that?

I can't help but notice how you keep blaming the prosecution because you're ONLY looking at everything from the defense's point of view. You don't care what the state had to say about anything. You only care that MG put this in this motion, MG got this out of cross. Screw the state's response. Screw the court's decision, and most importantly, SCREW anything that anyone said on the stand IF they were being questioned by the state.

They were ALL out to get the **** salesman.

[Dtviewer3]

Geragos requested a delay when the Aponte information came out, he was denied. Judge Delucchi didn't grant defense requests. He should have granted a mistrial on several occassions but again, he denied.

Oh really?

Hmmm-maybe you should read this:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/05/scott.peterson.case/index.html

Yes, thats a story from August 6th, 2004 where Geragos requested a delay during the trial to test possible 'exculpatory evidence', and it was granted.

Imagine that........

[NatalieB]

"Is it a fair statement that nobody contacted him ... until approximately six weeks ago during this trial?" Geragos asked.

"That's correct," Grogan replied. "I can't say that the sightings were automatically a priority for us at that time."

http://www.ktvu.com/news/3762366/detail.html


The former police officer existed, called the tipline and was IGNORED.

So, you showed that someone called, but haven't shown what this someone said that made LE not contact them. Was something off in what was said? Do you know?

In the end, this person STILL did not testify.

You have also not shown that this wasn't turned over via discovery in a timely matter. I will not talk specifically to this issue, but there were times when MG's accused the state of not turning over discovery to find out that MG had it buried in his own paperwork. There was upward to 10,000 pages of discovery in this case, so it can happen even when/if it's in good faith (and that would go both ways).

I'd be curious to know the court's ruling, too? Saying MG accused the state of this that or the other, means little if we don't know how it played out.

If this man was that credible though, you can take it to the bank that he would have been called.

BTW, I take nothing as fact till it's proven and I do thank you for digging to show that this guy did at least call early on. I certainly wouldn't have held you to finding that links as it's really tough anymore, but I wouldn't have accepted it as fact had you not done so.

I LIKE TO BE SPOON FED NOTHING.

[W_D_1]

I do believe you NEVER read the trial transcripts. Had you done so, you would NEVER be linking to any such article as this one. During the direct examination, there was a map put up and it was marked with EVERY tip that came in. It was shown when, why, and how each of the tips were investigated and why others were not. There were over 6000 tips and there were pins on that board from many other state's even. EVERYONE accounted for and explained.

You go read that testimony and get back with me. You're trying to retry this case based on media reports. Jurors went by the actual testimony. So sorry you did not.



Again you are ignoring the fact that a van was seen across the street from Laci's home on the morning she disappeared. You are also ignoring that Grogan said sightinjgs weren't a priority and that this particular witness wasn't contacted for TWO years. Everyone accounted for and explained??? A gross misrepresentation considering you have Grogan's testimony that they NEVER interviewed a witness until the trial was starting TWO YEARS after he called a tip in.

You based your decision that it couldn't be Laci on the fact that you think she couldn't have walked to that location. I see the possibility that she was in that location because she was inside a moving vehicle.

You bought the horse and pony show the police put on over the Medina burglary. I didn't. Todd and Pearce admitted burglarizing a home on a day they couldn't possibly have done it then changed their story. You and the MPD bought that changed story despite a witness placing them at the home on the dat laci disappeared. I didn't.

The whole account of they knew the house was empty because there was only one car in the driveway was ridiculous. What? No one in Modesto runs errands on Christmas Eve? One car means no one's home???

Their claim of seeing mail in the mailbox was proven false with the Medina's testimony about the type of mailbox they had. They couldn't see mail in that mailbox. Then you have the Tenbrink brothers. Police had a tip from a corrections officer that one brother told the other that Laci accosted Todd while he was breaking in but the police still took the word of THIEVES.

[W_D_1]

I can't help but notice how you keep blaming the prosecution because you're ONLY looking at everything from the defense's point of view. You don't care what the state had to say about anything. You only care that MG put this in this motion, MG got this out of cross. Screw the state's response. Screw the court's decision, and most importantly, SCREW anything that anyone said on the stand IF they were being questioned by the state.

They were ALL out to get the **** salesman.

I'm supposed to blame the defense because the state didn't know how to turn over evidence? The state got sanctioned in court for withholding evidence. Why should I care about their response? Should I just ignore how dirty they were? You can but I choose not to.

[NatalieB]

I just posted a link where Grogan admits no one contacted him until the trial was starting. Now why do you suppose Grogan contacted him? Was Grogan psychic? Did he contact random people he thought may have witnessed something? Or was he contacting someone who called in a tip?

I bolded Grogan's reply but I should have bolded the scary part of his reply....they decided within a week thaat sightings weren't a priority.

You got a tiny piece of the puzzle with that link. In transcripts, do you realize how much space that would take up? You wouldn't be questioning LE if you could go read his responses when he was once again being questioned by the state.

In your own link, it said he'd be back on the stand I believe it was Monday. So, that's where the reporter was left hanging on what had to be a Red Herring Thursday.

You can't pick one sentence out of a man's testimony when he's been on the stand for weeks. One thing I can tell you that I caught immediately when I was reading his testimony was that, he'd answer MG's questions without waiting for the question to be asked. Sometimes it might have been a 2 parter, and Grogan would answer only the first part. I caught that he answered questions completely wrong on a couple occasions because of this. I know that because it was in direct contrast to what he had said during direct and I recall it specifically because I talked about it on CTV's board at the time.

Truly, if you can ever find the transcripts and get a chance to read his testimony (and it will be time consuming), it is well worth it to have a clear picture of that investigation. It might not change your mind, but it will give you a clear picture of all that was done.

[Dtviewer3]

I'm supposed to blame the defense because the state didn't know how to turn over evidence? The state got sanctioned in court for withholding evidence. Why should I care about their response? Should I just ignore how dirty they were? You can but I choose not to.

Amazing.
So the State was dirty.
the police were putting on a 'horse and pony show'.
Geragos was incompetent.
The Judge was unfair.
The jurors were in collusion to make sure Scott was convicted.
(All the above from YOUR posts)

Am I missing anyone else who was out to get Scott?

[W_D_1]

You got a tiny piece of the puzzle with that link. In transcripts, do you realize how much space that would take up? You wouldn't be questioning LE if you could go read his responses when he was once again being questioned by the state.

In your own link, it said he'd be back on the stand I believe it was Monday. So, that's where the reporter was left hanging on what had to be a Red Herring Thursday.

You can't pick one sentence out of a man's testimony when he's been on the stand for weeks. One thing I can tell you that I caught immediately when I was reading his testimony was that, he'd answer MG's questions without waiting for the question to be asked. Sometimes it might have been a 2 parter, and Grogan would answer only the first part. I caught that he answered questions completely wrong on a couple occasions because of this. I know that because it was in direct contrast to what he had said during direct and I recall it specifically because I talked about it on CTV's board at the time.

Truly, if you can ever find the transcripts and get a chance to read his testimony (and it will be time consuming), it is well worth it to have a clear picture of that investigation. It might not change your mind, but it will give you a clear picture of all that was done.



Despite your claim I have read the transcripts. Reading them again won't change my mind. The prosecution did not prove their case against Scott, they withheld evidence from the defense and played dirty. The only reason they got a conviction was because juror 8 got the jury set up the way he wanted it. That was my opinion after the trial and it's my opinion now.

[NatalieB]

Or, with the trial underway, he didn't have enough time to investigate the tip which is why I think the prosecution didn't turn it over to the defense.

Think what you want about it being turned over or not. I already addressed that and am actually going to let it pass from here on in, though I won't change my opinion till it's shown.

Having said that, how much time do you need to investigate a tip? All he had to do was talk to the guy. Remember how fast he zipped to the store over lunch break to buy that bag of cement, don't you? How long did that take to investigate? MG never impressed me as someone unwilling to jump on something right away if it could prove his case. That one incident proved that much if nothing else.

Since the prosecution's case drug on for weeks on end, one would think that would have given him all the time he needed.