New Jury On The Case! - Trial of Scott Peterson

New Jury On The Case!

Trial of Scott Peterson Forum

Pages:  1Original Discusssion    Popular Forums    Search

Posted by: sleights

I live in Modesto and I know as well as everyone here that there will be no jury that can do this thing properly. All the jurys they've had have already accused him guilty. I dont see him as being guilty but I dont see him innocent. What are your thoughts. Do you guys think they will get a decent jury, how would you guys do as a jury?

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Ken NJ

http://pages.prodigy.net/mollyb/welcome.gif
We guys and gals here would have been struck out from the get go with the questionaire.

1. We all watched the nightly TV talk shows.
2. We all have strong opinions one way or another, except some stealths would deny that.
3. We think to a large extent that the present jurisdiction is too close to the crime scene with the large amount of pre-publicity indoctrinating the minds of the local residents.

But that is largely how I read those here, but I'm sure some would disagree. If you make mock jurors out of us, it would be a hung jury with what we know so far. Does that count?

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Whidden

quote:
sleights said this in post #1 :
Do you guys think they will get a decent jury, how would you guys do as a jury?


I think they will take their duty seriously and listen to the facts and make a fair ruling on what they hear in court.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
whidden said this in post #3 :


I think they will take their duty seriously and listen to the facts and make a fair ruling on what they hear in court.


Id like to think that is the case...but out of 1000 people who filled out questionnaires...only 300+ were chosen to move to the voir dire stage, and out of those they only have 48 picked....and they are wanting 70-80 people....

They have already discovered stealth jurors trying to get in so that they could find him guilty no matter what.....

So, again, Id like to think that was the case...but its not looking good.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Ken NJ

California has a special media spin for these high profile before trying a defendant. A couple cases come to mind like the Scott Peterson trial and the Michael Jackson trial. The California court judges think issuing "gag orders" will do. First The State makes the accusation with a press conference. Then hires a media consultant to keep spinning the news each day and everyway possible. Then DAs, detectives, cops and anonymous sources saturate the cable news network, the newspaper, the public airwaives, TV and radio. And of course, put those former DAs out there to pollute and character assasinate the defendant nightly. When the court of public opinion after a year or longer has kicked and killed, then do an indictment or Preliminary Hearing to get more news and blood extraction. And when the accused sits in jail for that long, hope s/he give up without fighting in the courts.

So after thousands of news, magazines, TV specials and review articles out there, then the court starts to look for an unbiased jury in California's own backyard of the defendant.

Looks like a fair trial to me. Can't have it any other way to guarantee The State a fair trial. Now what did you say about that U.S. Constitutional provision for the accused?

Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
Ken NJ said this in post #5 :
So after thousands of news, magazines, TV specials and review articles out there, then the court starts to look for an unbiased jury in California's own backyard of the defendant.

Looks like a fair trial to me. Can't have it any other way to guarantee The State a fair trial. Now what did you say about that U.S. Constitutional provision for the accused?


Hmmm....I have no choice but to agree with your statement when it involves a high profile case.

The statement of yours I put in red....well said!

Yes, I think there will be no fair trial here. I know people will argue that this didnt happen in OJ's case...but everyone knows where the problems lied in that case (forensic people)...and OJ was gonna find a fair jury regardless because of who he was...Scott isnt a great ex-football star who is black. And yes, I believe race played a big part in the OJ case. (besides the police mess-ups)
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Delta

You all would find something wrong if the trial was held in New Jersey. LOL

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Ken NJ

Certainly, the New Jersey DAs likewise as in California in the OJ case committed prosecutorial misconduct by lead LADA Clark. Jersey likes to hide the ball violating the Brady laws in sharing the police ballistic reports by the prosecution intentionally withholding notes and photographs the State's expert took when he examined the shotgun which Williams was handling when it fired, killing driver Costas Christofi at William's mansion.

The State knew all along that these Brady evidence were critical to the defense in supporting their argument that Jayson Williams accidently shot Christofi.

quote:
Williams' defense continues to target prosecution - By JEFFREY GOLD
The Associated Press

SOMERVILLE, N.J. - A state judge on Monday heard testimony from a prosecution weapons expert during a hearing to determine whether manslaughter charges should be dismissed against retired NBA star Jayson Williams.

http://www.courttv.com/graphics/photos/front/headline/williams-headline-021904.jpg Dismissal motion renewed charges that Lember gave improper presentations to the grand juries that indicted Williams. The judge has already rejected those objections.

The defense said Lember demonstrated a "continuing pattern of a win-at-all-cost mentality," and reiterated the contention that prosecution investigators were inept, mishandling evidence and paperwork.

The defense has maintained that Williams' shotgun, a 1993 Browning Citori 12-gauge, misfired when Williams snapped it shut while showing friends his mansion, killing Christofi, 55.

Nelson took the notes and 25 photographs when he partially disassembled the shotgun on Feb. 5, 2003. The examination took place with no defense representative present.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: viva_la_bum

Have you guys seen the laci Peterson Movie titled "The Pefect Husband"? It was actually a pretty well done film. Although they should have waited for the case to get over before creating the movie. Word to ya mutha!

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Delta

Hey Bum, welcome to the website. If you really want to find out about the Laci Peterson case and other to news go to Breaking news 12:39.

We all went over The Perfect Husband, just r ead back a month or two and yu will find a lot of debate on the movie.

D

Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
viva_la_bum said this in post #9 :It was actually a pretty well done film. [/B]



Well everyone....this just goes to show you how some people just eat up a movie and think everything on there was "real."

Well done huh? A movie that was made from news articles that werent even claimed as true??....a movie that even Laci's family wouldnt get involved in and said was bad after the movie aired???

I didnt see it...but I read the reviews afterword...and it was enough for me to know that I missed nothing. I wasnt about to watch a movie based on something that hasnt been proved as fact....and now I now that this movie did even more damage to him getting a fair trial....thanks to your "well done" comment.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Delta

Mystic, the A&E series on the laci Peterson murder had the facts. the movie was nothing.Just plain Nothing.

If people are swayed either way by this piece of tripe its a sad comentary on the brain cells of a lot of peraons.
D

Reply To this Message

Posted by: viva_la_bum

Mystic, When I stated it was well done, I meant, directing wise, time, low budget. I never said anything about the facts and all that being well carried out. If you actually read my post, I stated, I thought it was bad they didnt wait for the trial to end before creating the movie. Duh... lol. I couldnt believe they actually got a well known ator to play Scotts part. Plus he looked like him. Also, if you havnt seen the movie, dont judge the movie. A little advice for the future. Ive heard a lot of bad about many movies, when I saw them, I liked em. Anywho, Im out, Word to ya mutha!

Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
viva_la_bum said this in post #13 :
A little advice for the future. Ive heard a lot of bad about many movies, when I saw them, I liked em. Anywho, Im out, Word to ya mutha!



Well....I think I am allowed to judge it. I judged it before it even came on. There is a time for things and a time not for things. I wasnt going to allow myself to judge a man on trial for his life through a UA movie based on nothings. I thought it was pretty bad that so many people fell into this trap.

I also have seen movies I heard were bad....but this is slightly different...this isnt a Kevin Costner, Tom Hanks, etc movie.

And a little advice for yourself....

If you are gonna claim something well done, and you dont mean the movie itself....then perhaps clarifying yourself would suffice. I mean stating that the movie was well done but they should have waited doesnt say you are talking about the direction, etc. And BTW....in my opinion, any aspect of the film as far as I thought it to be when they first announced it was coming on was pure junk...that is, if you are looking a the whole scheme of things.

If you thought they should have waited...you should have refrained from seeing it altogether.....all you did was add to USA's ratings that night and made it even worse for him to get a fair trial...you know, the same thing you said they should have waited to do so he could have that.

Anyhow...this movie was on..what? Two months or so ago? Its really old news, and there is no point in going over it again....we already did that on the other thread Delta mentioned...free to join us on there if you'd like though.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Ken NJ

No, haven't seen it before the Scott trial. It's just an opportunitst looking to cash in on the death of Laci Peterson.

I would rather see the money go towards doing a more thorough job than the detectives who messed up the original investigation. Then they would have produced the real killers.

Instead, the movie merely regurgitates the same old, same old.... that Scott was NOT a perfect husband. Hello? Mostly everyone who followed this story KNEW that! Scott was chasing anything that wears a skirt or none at the dancing bar (for Amber) What an idiot!

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Delta

Mystic I was counting the time waiting for you to answer. ROFLMAO

D

Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
Delta said this in post #16 :
Mystic I was counting the time waiting for you to answer. ROFLMAO

D


You know me.....I had to reply!
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Zerrick

Mystic - When did being Black EVER help Anybody?!!

ROFL.....mystic honey, trust me... black is the last thing you want to be when trouble strikes.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
Zerrick said this in post #18 :
Mystic - When did being Black EVER help Anybody?!!

ROFL.....mystic honey, trust me... black is the last thing you want to be when trouble strikes.


Im not prejudice, nor will I argue this aspect with you...so dont even go there.

Ken argues OJ on here once in awhile....but the trial of Scott has started now, and since it has...we dont need to go on about OJ again....

And I never said its good to be black in certain instances...but the fact remains that OJ got the jury he wanted.


With that said....move on with this trial...youve been on here for hours and all you posted was about OJ?

Go figure.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Zerrick

Guilty conscience Mystic?

I didn't acuse you of being prejudice, nor did I ask you for an argument. As I matter-of-fact I thought the absurd comment was hilarious...quite laughable.

You made a statement and I asked you to back it. Apparently (given your comment) you feel being black helped OJ's case. I just want to know how you came to that conclusion, as I've never seen a case that being black was favorable.

*Suggestion

If you don't want somebody to "go there", then give a little thought to your comments, because that my dear was SOOOOOOOOOO CRAZY!

Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
Zerrick said this in post #20 :
Guilty conscience Mystic?

I didn't acuse you of being prejudice, nor did I ask you for an argument. As I matter-of-fact I thought the absurd comment was hilarious...quite laughable.

You made a statement and I asked you to back it. Apparently (given your comment) you feel being black helped OJ's case. I just want to know how you came to that conclusion, as I've never seen a case that being black was favorable.

*Suggestion

If you don't want somebody to "go there", then give a little thought to your comments, because that my dear was SOOOOOOOOOO CRAZY!


I dont have a guilty conscience...nor do I have to back what I say about a case that years old and over with.

This forum has nothing to do with OJ....get it?

You never asked me to back it...but to say when did being black ever help anyone...and I did back it..I said it helped OJ.

I dont have to give you anything about how I feel...obviously you see me and things based on one post I have written...maybe you should check out the rest of my thousands of posts and then let me know what you think...but dont even think you can determine who or what I am based on one post youve read.

So...with that said...would you care to get back on the topic of the Peterson trial...and the jury he has? That is after all the topic of this thread...im not.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Zerrick

Do I detect a little attitude Mystic?

* If a subject was spoken on, I can make a comment regarding the subject.
* OJ was mentioned by you and Ken, so don't tell me to move on.
* If you don't want people to comment on the subject, don't bring it up!
* OJ was how many years ago? Damn near 10 I believe. I think You and Ken need to move on.

You're a trip. You wouldn't have a clue how long I've been on here if you hadn't been on here just as long.

Get it together Mystic. I see my replies to YOUR OJ comment made you a little too nervous, I'll leave you alone before you have a breakdown of sorts.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Lawless

Okay guys... break it up! This is the Scott Peterson forum... Zerrick, I suggest you discuss this particular case in this forum, and stop irritating our members. It's one thing to share your opinions on INReview, but purposely trying to instigate a problem on here isn't going to be permitted.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Zerrick

KJ - I didn't see you jump in and tell Mystic and Ken to discuss OJ in a different forum. Why? I agree that this case shouldn't be discussed in this forum, I just think you're a little late saying it (I didn't bring the over and done with case up).

There was no intent to irritate your members nor instigate a problem. I asked Mystic a question (as anyone will be able to see) and gave my opinion of her statement and now I'm being accused of irritating and instigating problems.

Is it o.k. for us to voice our opinions as long as it doesn't offend Mystic? If those are the rules let me know and I will keep a mental note of such.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Lawless

Zerrick... the first comment was to everyone... to discuss the topic of this forum, and this forum only. If you guys want to discuss OJ, go to another forum, or start a thread in the SP forum to discuss similarities, etc...

When I receive complaints from other members about a problem, I will answer it. I haven't received anything from you, about mystic.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Zerrick

Oh sorry..I missed the comment to everyone. From my readings (and I've read it 3 times now), you called me by name. I guess that was just how I preceived it.

Hey look, I didn't know you all have a place for complaints...but don't worry about it KJ... You won't receive any complaints from me about Mystic... I'm not here to change anybody's views, just want to share mine and find out what makes people have theirs. Afterall I thought this was the purpose of the site.

Scott Peterson it is..............

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Delta

Listen kJ is not just talking about you, it goes for all of us, we have a neat group at Breaking News 12;39 we are covering the trial now as it is happening.

I hope I am not out of line offering a newbie a welcome and option forum.


d

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Ken NJ

quote:
Zerrick said this in post #22

Do I detect a little attitude Mystic?

* If a subject was spoken on, I can make a comment regarding the subject.

http://pages.prodigy.net/mollyb/welcome.gif Zerrick. You seem to know the protocols and life realities. Eh don't worry about what you see posted here, the people are fairly nice. We all know when to back away and find the next area of interest to discuss. One thing I fairly certain being here six months and having read thousands of Mystic's posting and a few of yours.... is that neither are prejudiced by race. The fact that we are able to bring the topic up and see the issue within another makes people more mature and thoughtful of their possible side impacts to the main issue under discussion.

* OJ was mentioned by you and Ken, so don't tell me to move on.

Yes, Mystic and I go around a couple of times.... and we both KNOW that OJ has become a life example of differences among people with different upbringings. She from the Mid-west and I from Yankee town up North. And furthermore, I believe in his innocence, just like Scott, because neither are the real killers.

* If you don't want people to comment on the subject, don't bring it up!

Bring it all up for comment, I like to see and hear MORE on your views just like Mystic has no hesitation to discuss her's on these boards. You can address the topical issues directly or indirectly in your conversations and I read them, laugh at them.... think about them and we chose to respond to or not. Please don't be shy around here, despite the powers to be pushing their weight. Your views are valued by me and will stand by you, as I don't mind stepping up to defend unpopular positions likes Scott, OJ, Jacko, Kobe, Martha and others.

* OJ was how many years ago? Damn near 10 I believe. I think You and Ken need to move on.

Agree comes 10 years this month June 12, 1994 for which I still hold the same belief from OJ facts, court evidence, witness testimonies and books published that Simpson "did not, could not and would not" have killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. If you want to Read some of my OJ Thread and Posts on INReview , < -- Just Click Here

You're a trip. You wouldn't have a clue how long I've been on here if you hadn't been on here just as long. Get it together Mystic. I see my replies to YOUR OJ comment made you a little too nervous, I'll leave you alone before you have a breakdown of sorts.

It would be a shame to end everyone's discussion prematurely, because from what I've seen so far, none seems to be that far apart as to core beliefs in either position. You're both more similar than a few issues that separate from each other. One thing I'm certain about is that neither you nor Mystic are sensitive, closed-miinded, nor selfish enough to hold own views inside. So how about it, let's see and hear some of your issues?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: oldbutafan

Some "overlap" is inevitable, but I think KJ had a good suggestion re a new thread for discussion of the similarities and dis-similarities of various High-Profile trials/cases.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Zerrick

Thanks for the welcome Ken. I appreciate your taking the time to brake those things down for me.

You seem to have good sense about yourself, thats always good to see.

I need a tutorial on how to do those neat little things with my paragraphs....can you help?

I'm new here (as you can probably tell). I came in on the AI bandwagon. I haven't gone through all the forums but I'll go through a couple of interest to see what you're talking about. I look forward to some interesting convo. with you.

Thanks again.........

Reply To this Message

Posted by: oldbutafan

quote:
Zerrick said this in post #30 :

I need a tutorial on how to do those neat little things with my paragraphs


Z ... until Ken responds by PM or whatever, perhaps some of this will help :

InReview Links:

** Frequently Asked Questions:

http://www.inreview.com/misc.php?s=&action=faq

** The FAQ Page that deals with reading/posting messages:

http://www.inreview.com/misc.php?s=&action=faq&page=3


** The page that explains all the "code" used to do those neat little things :

http://www.inreview.com/misc.php?s=&action=bbcode


** A thread in Forum Support where you can TEST those neat little things:

http://www.inreview.com/showthread....6566&forumid=34



** InReview Forum Support hub, where you can seek or find answers to other questions:

http://www.inreview.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=34

........

Glad you found us
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Zerrick

Thanks oldbutafan...

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Ken NJ

Just to stay on topic, you think Scott will walk?

quote:
Zerrick said this in post #30 (just click lower right hand corner button "quote" to activate what you see inside the quote frame here -then do you own editing/typing etc.)

I need a tutorial on how to do those neat little things with my paragraphs....can you help? (to bold text, go to upper left and click radio button B (bold), I (itilicize), U (underline.) )

Sure, just post what you want to know.... it took me awhile, first crawling around here looking and reading, then stand up and staying my positions, then walking through threads and then taking opposing positions and advancing to challenging issues I don't agree with. Once in a while, I get zing but I get up and go again. The beauty is we have infinite number of lives and opportunities on cyberspace. So don't be shy and get your rear-end moving, okay? I'll stand by you for a few rounds before you take off on your own. (just type ; ) to get this smiley face)

I'm new here (as you can probably tell). I came in on the AI bandwagon. I haven't gone through all the forums but I'll go through a couple of interest to see what you're talking about. I look forward to some interesting convo. with you. Thanks again.........

You'll like this place... the people are nice.... and some can be nasty (which makes for great excitement (you do that by typing in : yes : (without spacing) to get smiley face )

There are lot more neat things to do.... as to the following:

    * If you want to put things in quotes... type in [q u o t e] your message typed in [/q u o t e] (without the spacing)

    * If you make a mistake.... after submitting post.... click lower right button "edit" and then you will see exactly what text and key codes contained. You can erase, modify and edit your corrections and changes. If not working right.... redo edit.


INReview has explanation pages of instructions too on the use of UBB codes.
Just holler if need help, okay?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Lawless

Zerrick, go to this link:

http://www.inreview.com/misc.php?s=&action=faq

It's our FAQ, and you can learn a lot about how to use codes, and do different things. I hope that helps you out.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Delta

Hey Thanks you all, been here over a year and s till fumbling around, so Z don't feel dumb we all are in our way.

D

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Zerrick

Thanks again guys....

Hey Ken - I don't think Scott will walk. Not saying he shouldn't, just don't think he will :-)

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Ken NJ

My, My..... Zerrick, I'm totally surprised with that POV , based on having learned and read about the two opening statements made by the DA and then by the Defense the last two days.

http://www.findlaci2003.us/scott-smirk-62603.jpg More than half the time after the opening statements, people get a good feeling who's going to win. In this instance, you see things way differently than I had expected. I'm anxious to hear how you are going to stand by your position on the Scott issue "he ain't going to walk."
Wanna take this to any of the Scott Threads you see here?

You're new here, so I don't want you to think I'm taking advantage of you. But take your pick on any and we can discuss why you want him to stay in jail. If you want to gain a bit of insight on my background views..... go to Delta's Killer Thread. < --- Just Click Here & scroll down 3/4 way to # 2337 The Cops And Amber Going To Free Scott Don't be shy; Y'all come back now.... okay parnter?

Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

Sorry Ken...Im almost with Zerrick on that one...

I think it is possible that there will be reasonable doubt...I just dont give much to the jury....that saying, I do think the jury will convict him regardless....

So I guess Im saying that I dont think highly of our jury system in this case because of all the problems we have already seen with stealth jurors.

I dont know at this point though...its just a guess.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Ken NJ

Yeah but Mystic, to have all 12 jurors being stealth?

Come now, I have lots of respect for jurors, having been selected through voir dire and deliberated. My experience told me that people from different walks of life who assembled in the jury room are very serious when it comes to making a decision on the defendant's future.

There's got to be at least ONE juror who will reach reasonable doubt and that will at least give the defense a partial victory.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Zerrick

Now Ken....

I didn't say " he ain't going to walk" I said, " I don't think Scott will walk". I don't use ebonics all the time, so get my quotes right :-)

I also never said I wanted to see Scott stay behind bars, I just think its going to work out that way for the obvious liar and cheater ( not that being those things make him a murderer).

I'll go read your post and get back to you.

Never fear Zerrick is here :-)


You see KJ...mystic and I can agree on something :-)

Reply To this Message

Posted by: oldbutafan

As I have said -- if Distaso gave us all he had in his opening statement -- they (the Prosecution) will have a very difficult time removing reasonable doubt -- but that is assuming the jury is capable of cognitive reasoning

Reply To this Message

Posted by: oldbutafan

I hit the go button too fast on the quick reply ... so to continue ...

I think previous "high-profile" cases and this "high-profile, high-powered" wise-cracking lawyer, and the Peterson family acting "raucous" in couart and in a way that makes them unsympathetic (to some) could be a huge disadvantage.

While some people have discomfort with the authority embodied by the prosecution, in general I believe that most people are more skeptical and distrustful when someone is known to be "slick" as MG is ... and this could be viewed as another "dream team".

On the other hand, Judge D has been hammering the "burden of proof" aspect and that the accused by law is entitled to the benefit of the DOUBT.

So ... in a possible 6 month trial, who knows what will stick ?

Regardless of the outcome, I think there will be those who will question the verdict.

I was seated with 9 others at dinner yesterday, and they ALL said SP is "obviously" guilty ... but what a shame that there is no "real proof".

That in itself is an interesting commentary isn't it ?

Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
oldbutafan said this in post #42 :
I was seated with 9 others at dinner yesterday, and they ALL said SP is "obviously" guilty ... but what a shame that there is no "real proof".

That in itself is an interesting commentary isn't it ?


Thats unfortunately what I see will happen with this jury. The fact is that "no real proof" should exonerate him...but I think most people think the way your friends do...and that goes for the jury in this case...IMO. I think its a shame...but its reality.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Ken NJ

quote:
oldbutafan said this in post #42 :

I was seated with 9 others at dinner yesterday, and they ALL said SP is "obviously" guilty ... but what a shame that there is no "real proof".

That in itself is an interesting commentary isn't it ?

Then I see Mystic's comment, but I still have a positive attitude that people in our society will do the right thing to further advance humanity. Some people do hold their civic duties seriously . There are at least a couple of serious jurors amongst the stealth.
quote:
Thats unfortunately what I see will happen with this jury. The fact is that "no real proof" should exonerate him...but I think most people think the way your friends do...and that goes for the jury in this case...IMO. I think its a shame...but its reality.

Does reality bites? You mean that people from different walks of life when assembled in the jury room can reason and look to the law and the evidence to make the right decision from the written jury instructions given before them?

I have lots of faith in juries. They'll see through this smoke and mirror case and will get Scott freed.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Delta

Sorry ken I am with the girls and Z. I think the antics of MG and the peterson clan will hurt your boy. Not everyone is as astute as we are on this site

D

Reply To this Message

Posted by: oldbutafan

Ken ... for the record ... the people I had dinner with yesterday were not friends. I had never met any of those at our table ... well one man in passing ... and we were from "all walks of life", backgrounds different genders and colors of skin and collars.

The "obviously guilty" but "no real proof" scared the hell out of me.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
oldbutafan said this in post #46 :
The "obviously guilty" but "no real proof" scared the hell out of me.


That should scare the hell out of everyone.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Ken NJ

quote:
Delta said this in post #45

Sorry ken I am with the girls and Z. I think the antics of MG and the peterson clan will hurt your boy. Not everyone is as astute as we are on this site D

http://www.findlaci2003.us/scott-geragos-jumpsuit-a.jpg er with Geragos' courtroom antics. He's not going for Mr. Popularity. He's the messenger of truth.

Geragos tells them that the hard evidence support Scott's innocents - "Stone Cold Innocence." He already lined up dozens of witnesses to corroborate Scott's story that Laci was observed alive on Christmas Eve Morning. Doesn't matter if Geragos gets up on the Judge's Desk and dances. When he's right; Geragos gets hugs and kisses. He who holds the cards - WIN!

Geragos is animated. He keeps all the jurors awake by entertaining them with his showmanship. He picks up the stack of thousand page documents and pops the DA discovery papers and slams them down on the table exclaiming "Nada, zip, zilch.....no evidence." He puts the long list of Detectives, Investigators and cops and all the time they worked on the case focusing on Scott only and puts out a long list of suspects reported by the neighbors and media for which he will exclaim once again..... "They didn't follow up on any of the neighbor's leads and reported sighting of witnesses..... until just a few weeks ago.... some neighbor leads whom have died already.... Nada, zip, zilch.... no evidence." BOOMED!
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Delta

Ken, a little too much zazle for my taste, give me a Gerry Spence anyday, and mG should have a Swan makeover so we don't have to look at his homely face all year. He could take 3 months off, I wont miss him. LOL

D

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Delta

Now we know it wasn't just one skirt as it has been revelved Scott was mesing around on Laci shortly after they married. Scum Bag

Word to ya mutha ( Don't ask, I just copied it from the kid above) No offense to anyones Mother.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Ken NJ

quote:
Delta said this in posting

Ken, a little too much zazle for my taste, give me a Gerry Spence anyday, and mG should have a Swan makeover so we don't have to look at his homely face all year. He could take 3 months off, I wont miss him. LOL

Which would you rather take the Swan Challenge again Delta?
http://images.ibsys.com/2003/0926/2514058_120X90.jpg http://www.findlaci2003.us/geragos1.jpg I happen to like Gerry Spence because he's good with juries and keeps them interested. But I rather think that Geragos is the better attorney for the Scott Peterson CRIMINAL case for the following reasons.
    1. Geragos has home field advantage and more familiar with local California courts, procedures and local judges, with his office and staff an hour or two away. Geragos was recently named Trial Lawyer of the Year by the Los Angeles Criminal Courts Bar Association. Spence practices law in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, some more remote site.
    2. Geragos has more recent court and media exposure than Spence in practicing high profile defenses representing more famous people than Spence with Winona Ryder against shoplifting charges, U.S. Congressman Gary Condit (Chandra Levy,) Roger Clinton and Nate Dogg. Geragos is a legal consultant for MSNBC, FOX News and CNN and has made numerous television talk show appearances.
    3. Geragos defended Susan McDougal in the 90's, the jailed Whitewater defendant accused of obstructing justice during the Bill Clinton presidency. He not only won her acquittal in two trials (one unrelated to Whitewater) but Geragos negotiated her presidential pardon.
    4. Geragos is the master of legal high tech in influencing technology and outreaching information to the public. Spence is good with the rotary phone and doing slow class room stuff. In recent years Geragos launched several Web sites relating to the law and finance, including MagnaBand.net, TheJusticeSystem.net, VoteAcrossAmerica.com and ItsAboutFinance.com.

Jerry Spence has more high profile CIVIL plaintiff cases against BIG corporation suing for multi-million dollars than Geragos. Delta, the Scott Peterson case is about defending MURDER and not about Sharon's lawsuit for money. Perhaps, the Rochas should have hired Spence for the civil lawsuit.
quote:
Spence first gained national recognition when he received a $10M. verdict against Kerr-McGee in the Karen Silkwood case on behalf of her children. Later he earned such verdicts as $26.5M against Penthouse for Miss Wyoming and successfully defended Ed Cantrell in the famous Rock Springs, Wyoming murder case. Spence received a $52M verdict against McDonald's Corporation, the fast-food chain, on behalf of a small, bankrupt, family-owned ice cream company for McDonald's breach of an oral contract. A Utah medical malpractice verdict of over $4M established a new standard for nursing care in that state. In 1990 he won acquittal for Imelda Marcos on multiple charges after a three-and-a-half month trial in New York City. In June 1992, he received a record-breaking $15M verdict for emotional damages incurred by his quadriplegic client because a major insurance company refused to pay the $50M policy more than twenty years earlier. Two weeks later he added $18.5M in punitive damages to the award. In July 1993, Spence successfully defended Randy Weaver on murder, assault, conspiracy and gun charges in the famous Idaho federal standoff case.

Source: www.triallawyerscollege.com
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Ken NJ

quote:
oldbutafan said this in post #46

Ken ... for the record ... the people I had dinner with yesterday were not friends. I had never met any of those at our table ... well one man in passing ... and we were from all walks of life, backgrounds different genders and colors of skin and collars.

The obviously guilty but no real proof scared the hell out of me.

All bird crap. The people you had dinner with have been indoctrinated by massive media sensation to which most of America believes in all the crap floated out from the police leaks against Scott Peterson like Scott dyed his hair orange days before being arrested. Those photos are false and have been doctored, like they put more black color into OJ Simpson's mug shot on the cover of a national magazine before start of the murder trial to influence the jury and people across America. The same junk in Scott case; they believe he had $15,000 and jumping the Mexican border too, but forgot to say that Scott was merely doing his job in collecting accounts receivable from his customers within his geographically territory.

Dyed Orange Hair When Arrested?
http://www.findlaci2003.us/peterson-scott-mug.jpg Actual Mug Shot Day Arrested
These Officers of The Court Prosecutor Rick Distasio and the Detectives should be arrested for planting false information in court.

YES how is it obviously guilty and who has to prove the case with some relevant evidence? For me to think that your dinner guests and circle of friends now has me wondering....
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Delta

The Court of Public opinion Ken will jump up and bite you in the butt everytime.

Yo know that dontcha?

D

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Ken NJ

Oh Delta, you really think the general public buy into the government's theory of prosecution all the time? The DAs are ridiculous and just wanting the jury to buy into it that Scott is the real killer.

Nope, I am NOT signing up into the jury verdict sheet as guilty.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Delta

No Kenny, not all the time, but on this case which has so much publicity they have had polls and mor polls which indicate the public is overwhelming in favor of Scotts Guilt. Where do you live in a tunnel in far away NJ? I am not saying anything new.
D

Reply To this Message

Posted by: mystic

quote:
Delta said this in post #55 :
No Kenny, not all the time, but on this case which has so much publicity they have had polls and mor polls which indicate the public is overwhelming in favor of Scotts Guilt. Where do you live in a tunnel in far away NJ? I am not saying anything new.
D


EWWW!!

See I hate statistics...and for the most part they are biased...

Polls taken in Modesto are completely biased because of the population polled. Polls taken on the computer are biased because you can only reach a population that is privvy to computers....

Look...just because you see polls doesnt mean those polls are correct...

Its just like David Letterman said: "did you know that 3 out of 4 people is 75 percent of the population?" (Sorry...that was one of my favorite lines by him...mainly because it pokes fun at how silly polls are at times).
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Delta

GADZOOKS we can't even keep on one thread, its impossible to get into a long discussion when flipping around, and keep the continuity going.

D

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Delta

Kenny I read Gerry Spense's bibliograpy of books and am send in the one titled How ro Argue and Win, to Distasio, maybe he can learn some good points/

D

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Ken NJ

Anyone noticed why my Uncle Sam's picture was erased? Are the thought police tampering again?

quote:
Ken NJ said this in post #54

Oh Delta, you really think the general public buy into the government's theory of prosecution all the time? The DAs are ridiculous and just wanting the jury to buy into it that Scott is the real killer.

http://mrnick.binary9.net/images/.thumbs/i_wants.jpg Nope, I am NOT signing up into the jury verdict sheet as guilty.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Ken NJ

quote:
quote:
Delta said this in post #58

Kenny I read Gerry Spense's bibliograpy of books and am send in the one titled How ro Argue and Win, to Distasio, maybe he can learn some good points -D

DA Distasio is going nuts trying to save his case from deterioration. All the government's key witnesses are dropping off like flies.

http://www.findlaci2003.us/distasso-rick1.jpg Besides, this Rookie DA ain't got the time to read your book anyway. He's too green behind the ears.

http://www.legeros.com/toys/thumbs/soarart-ladder_small.jpg If you want to help him, best to let him know early that The State has no case against Scott Peterson beause he isn't the real killer. Send him that message, not a book in continuing the case. DA Rick Distasio needs a ladder to get down from his mess from bumbling cops. Distasio was mislead by corrupt cops from Modesto.
Reply To this Message

Pages:  1 Free Forums    Chat Forum

Trial of Scott Peterson Forum: New Jury On The Case!

Forum Forum Forum