Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or Geragos screwed up. Or some of the tips were not followed up on. Or some of the witnesses were hypnotized making then unable to testify.
The defense cost north of a million dollars. They had multiple investigators and attorneys dedicated to the case. The defense did not screw up. They made tactical decisions based on the credibility of the witnesses or the stories. Instead of calling defense witnesses directly, they got a lot of that information in during cross examination of the state's witnesses in discussing police reports or tips with the MDP officers. It was a tactical decision that didn't work since they lost. That doesn't mean Geragos screwed up, it means the jury didn't buy his scenario that he put forth. Losing the trial doesn't necessarily mean that Geragos screwed up.
At what point did the witnesses state they saw her in black pants and a white shirt? Was it BEFORE, or was it AFTER they knew the missing woman was reported to have been wearing black pants and a white shirt?
Say, they've seen this woman and her dog walking the neighborhood before, and they recognize her from the poster. And they've seen her enough they know her when they see her. And now she's on a missing poster, and it says black pants white shirt.
If you can research and discover that these witnesses DID NOT see that description of black pants and a white top - and that these witnesses came up with that all on their own without any knowledge of being told that's what she was wearing, I'd say it was significant.
I believe your thinking is too rigid, and not accounting for how people's memories are processed.
Follow up question, was there in fact a woman who looked significantly like Laci who was pregnant walking a golden retriever and wearing black pants and a white top? Because surely that woman would have come forward. I honestly don't know the answer to that.
I answered this a few days ago, I don't know how to search for past posts.
When Laci was reported missing the cops asked Scott what she was last wearing. The missing person announcement and posters had the description of Laci, including what she was last seen wearing (black pants and white top). Click here and here for examples of the missing person flyers. The people who reported seeing her walking the dog that morning were presumably responding to the news stories and/or missing person posters. They knew what she was reported to have been wearing before contacting the police or whoever they contacted.
Everyone is assuming that the witnesses saw Laci or someone else walking the golden retriever Christmas Eve, it is also possible that some people were mistaken and had seen the person walking the dog on a different day. They were responding to this days or weeks after her disappearance (depending on the witness). People have bad memories when asked to recall events, they tend to default to what their usual routine is. I've done food borne illness outbreak investigations, and asking people what they ate or what they were doing a couple of days ago is tough! People just don't remember most things unless they stand out for some reason.
The series should be renamed: Scott's fictional account of the facts and how it relates to his last appeal.
lol, I couldn't agree more. I am actually disappointed with A & E. They are presenting this as a documentary, but it is very biased and has inaccuracies and misrepresentations. It's obviously pro-Scott, not a balanced look at the issues.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 2 days ago)
35,605 posts, read 17,935,039 times
Reputation: 50632
Quote:
Originally Posted by FleaT
I answered this a few days ago, I don't know how to search for past posts.
When Laci was reported missing the cops asked Scott what she was last wearing. The missing person announcement and posters had the description of Laci, including what she was last seen wearing (black pants and white top). Click here and here for examples of the missing person flyers. The people who reported seeing her walking the dog that morning were presumably responding to the news stories and/or missing person posters. They knew what she was reported to have been wearing before contacting the police or whoever they contacted.
Everyone is assuming that the witnesses saw Laci or someone else walking the golden retriever Christmas Eve, it is also possible that some people were mistaken and had seen the person walking the dog on a different day. They were responding to this days or weeks after her disappearance (depending on the witness). People have bad memories when asked to recall events, they tend to default to what their usual routine is. I've done food borne illness outbreak investigations, and asking people what they ate or what they were doing a couple of days ago is tough! People just don't remember most things unless they stand out for some reason.
Thank you. That's what I thought - they already knew the clothing description and just agreed with it.
BTW - to search for old posts, click on your name. That will take you to a screen where you click on the folder "statistics". Click on find all posts by FleaT and you'll see them all.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 2 days ago)
35,605 posts, read 17,935,039 times
Reputation: 50632
Quote:
Originally Posted by FleaT
That presupposes that the judge knew that the alternate that he would seat on the jury would vote along with the remaining jurors. How could he know that? As far as he knew, the new juror could have been an obstacle to the process too. The jury foreman did not think that Scott was innocent, he couldn't make up his mind and insisted on going over the same evidence again and again. It wasn't that he wanted to review evidence that the other jurors objected to, he wanted to keep rehashing the same thing over and over and couldn't make a decision. When juries don't agree or are stuck in deliberations, they go to the judge, the judge will instruct them to continue to deliberate. This is of course up to the discretion of the judge, but this process usually repeats several times before a judge will declare a mistrial. In this case the jury foreman asked to get off of the case, what is the judge supposed to do say no?
I'm not presupposing the judge knew the new juror would vote that way. I think anyone could guess that, based on the overwhelming feeling in the court. I think you'd be remiss to believe a random alternate juror would NOT agree with guilt, and find guilt in kind of a madcap partying way. Which was the tone at the time. But you don't have to presuppose the judge already knew that ahead of time before replacing the juror - just that replacing the juror was not the correct procedure.
You can decide the judge erred when he allowed the juror to recuse himself, without assigning ill intent to the judge.
Jurors ask to be let off the jury ALL THE TIME, very often being practically dragged unwillingly in the beginning to participate, even though they protest strongly that they don't want to serve.
He wanted to keep deliberating because he wasn't in favor of guilt, and they wanted to declare Peterson guilty. The judge should have called for a vote, and then declared a mistrial. This man, the foreman, was still working through the evidence in order to convince his fellow jurors Peterson was not guilty.
Technically, you're correct. It takes a judge to declare a jury hung, and the judge chose instead to remove the decenter rather than declare the jury hung.
He was made extremely uncomfortable for holding an "unpopular opinion" in the jury room, and was therefore allowed to walk free at which point someone who was more agreeable to the guilty verdict was placed there.
I'm sorry. A spade is a spade. That jury was hung, and to deal with that issue the judge removed the one hold out and replaced him.
Which is NOT the same thing as removing a juror for misconduct, or due to health or family emergency. It's because he wasn't in agreement with the other 11 on the guilt of the defendant.
I strongly believe before removing a juror for any reason except dire health of the juror, or inappropriate behavior, before removal after days of deliberation a vote should be called. If that indicates the jury is hung, it's hung. Or at any rate, you're not removing the one lone decenter, you're removing one whose opinion will have less profound impact.
The dismissed foreman was unable to make a decision, and was "flustered" when he had to defend his opinion. That's not the same thing as a "hung jury". Furthermore, he chose to opt out of the jury. No one disagrees that if the jury deliberations had been different, there would have been a different result, but they weren't.
"Guinasso said that when other jurors challenged the foreman's opinion, he became flustered.
"At that point he told the 10 other people there 'I want off the trial. I've never been at a meeting like this in my life and there's too much hostility in the room,'" Guinasso said."
Thank you so much for looking into this! That is the point on which this entire scenario hinges: Rawlin's claim that he was at the house at a specific time and can unequivocally state that the robbers were not there at that time.
Now we know that Ted Rawlins cannot state when he was at the house that morning, so we cannot rely on him to know whether anyone was at the Medina house the day after Christmas. That means we can rely on police for facts about the robbery, and Scott's story crumbles like dust.
The fair trial appeal will always stick with me, as I said previously I've served jury duty far too often with my last one being over a month. Funny one, I didn't get picked twice because of my shaved head, then later on that day, the jury pool was getting slim so then I was picked. My shaved head turns out to be a pre requisite for white supremacy, my comment that I didn't come from the comb over generation didn't go over well.
On all the trials I served, not once did myself or fellow jury members know anything about the case, especially the one that lasted over a month, we didn't know anything. I know for a fact they were fair trials.
Future book deals, in our case we knew nothing about anything so going in it wasn't even a thought. In the State vs Scott Peterson, book deals would have been absolutely thought of.
50-80 million people in the US knew about Scott Peterson, they've seen him linked to other dissapearences, they've seen it reported that his house smelled of bleach, which was a lie, and they've seen pundit after pundit convict him w/o a trial.
Did some of these jurors realize they would get national tv exposure? ..., of course they did, by acting more boisterous than others.
Now if 12 billionaires served on this trial, or a professional jury then I would absolutely believe he received a fair trial, 12 celebrity's even, who didn't care about tv time, if they had the trial in Caribou, Maine, I'm good with that. But the way it was done, no way would I ever believe it was fair, and I won't be convinced otherwise, we've seen too many times what money does to people.
The defense had to prove his innocence, which should of already been presumed, not a fair trial.
As for where the prosecution failed, dog sniffing, people go overboard in terms of loving their pets, calling it voodoo science, was stupid on Geragos part. Just bring facts like the other dog who had a better record at the time, sniffed nothing.
Brocchini, everything had to be stricken about him stealing Scotts gun from his truck, but then the judge tells the jury that everything they saw when the jury member got in the boat and rocked it, had to stricken as well.
It would of taken just one jury member who's never been on a boat to think Scott easily dumped her body in the water, and the fact the defense had videotaped experiments in the water with people dumping 150lbs from that exact boat that was never seen by the jury. That and dismissing the first jury member were really the only big mistakes made by the judge.
At what point did the witnesses state they saw her in black pants and a white shirt? Was it BEFORE, or was it AFTER they knew the missing woman was reported to have been wearing black pants and a white shirt?
Say, they've seen this woman and her dog walking the neighborhood before, and they recognize her from the poster. And they've seen her enough they know her when they see her. And now she's on a missing poster, and it says black pants white shirt.
If you can research and discover that these witnesses DID NOT see that description of black pants and a white top - and that these witnesses came up with that all on their own without any knowledge of being told that's what she was wearing, I'd say it was significant.
I believe your thinking is too rigid, and not accounting for how people's memories are processed.
Follow up question, was there in fact a woman who looked significantly like Laci who was pregnant walking a golden retriever and wearing black pants and a white top? Because surely that woman would have come forward. I honestly don't know the answer to that.
Doesn't it seem obvious that the witnesses came forward after Laci was reported missing, and after Scott provided police with a description of what she was allegedly wearing when he last saw her?
I'm with with you on that except that they believed the burglars timeline, and no one cared about the burglars timeline because the police were focused on Laci Peterson, and rightfully so. You believe the police and the burglars, I choose to believe that house wasn't robbed when the reporters got there. I've heard between 5-5:30 on that. By 6 am it was flooded with reporters anyway, that main reporter chick said she was there everyday by 6:15 at the latest because she had to set up for 7am tv.
Rowlands, had to set up for 6:30 tv.
Why would you believe someone about when he was at the house in the morning when he has changed his statement about when he was there? Rawlins did not provide a range of time when he was at the house, he stated two completely different times. He doesn't know when he was there, and it appears that he is shifting his time to accommodate whatever Scott's appeal wants him to say.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
