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.
Or, as the Defense stated in an earlier episode (not sure which), there were just too many "contradictions" with or among the witnesses, making them unreliable.
Judges more than having hung juries hate to be overturned on appeal... Scott's conviction would have been overturned in a heartbeat if the judge did what you claim for the sole purpose of gaining a conviction...sorry what you believe is irrelevant...
Anytime. Maybe after her walk. Maybe even after she was abducted (if she was abducted). It's ridiculous to cling to clothing as an identifier as clothing is readily available and can be changed in a matter of moments.
I've never heard it was the MO of kidnappers to bring along a wardrobe of clothing which might fit whoever ends up being their victim.
Of course, it's an important identifier which is why LE asks for specific descriptions of what a missing person was last seen wearing.
You also like the Harshman tip who said the woman forced into a van as he was driving by (never mind that the woman must also have seen him as a passer-by and didn't flail, scream, struggle, try to get his attention, or otherwise call for help) was wearing a red shirt.
1. Scott said "black pants/white, long-sleeve t-shirt"
2. Multiple witnesses said the same
3. Harshman said black pants/red shirt
4. She was found with cream capris
It's not ridiculous to focus on clothing, especially when there are several discrepancies.
Did anyone else notice this or remember these two different times?
...this entire scenario that hinges on Ted Rawlins claim that the robbers were near the Peterson home the same day that she was reported missing falls completely apart. If he changed the times, then nothing he says about when he was there can be believed. If I'm mistaken, okay.
You are not mistaken, Lieneke. In Episode 1, Ted Rowlands says he was there at 5 AM.
I've never heard it was the MO of kidnappers to bring along a wardrobe of clothing which might fit whoever ends up being their victim.
Of course, it's an important identifier which is why LE asks for specific descriptions of what a missing person was last seen wearing.
You also like the Harshman tip who said the woman forced into a van as he was driving by (never mind that the woman must also have seen him as a passer-by and didn't flail, scream, struggle, try to get his attention, or otherwise call for help) was wearing a red shirt.
1. Scott said "black pants/white, long-sleeve t-shirt"
2. Multiple witnesses said the same
3. Harshman said black pants/red shirt
4. She was found with cream capris
It's not ridiculous to focus on clothing, especially when there are several discrepancies.
If you assume she didn't change her clothes after her walk and before she was kidnapped and that the kidnappers killed her shortly after grabbing her then sure, a change of clothes would be odd. There are however other possibilities. Obviously.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 10 days ago)
35,635 posts, read 17,982,736 times
Reputation: 50666
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohyesidid
Then you are claiming Judge Delucchi was corrupt. There is no evidence of this. The foreman asked to be removed.
Whenever deliberations result in a hung jury, it may be due to one holdout. Being the one to dissent is not a reason for dismissal.
This is just another fantasy to bolster a conspiracy theory.
No. I'm not claiming he was corrupt.
I'm claiming that was a bad decision to make, and unfair. The rules are, you get 12 people in there and all 12 have to agree. That didn't happen, so as the days went by and the other jurors pressured him more and more strongly, he wished to be removed. Sorry, bub, your job is to stand in judgement, and not say it's too hard to disagree with the 11, I want out.
And judge, your job is to encourage them to reach a consensus if possible, and if it isn't, declare a mistrial.
You keep wanting me to say the judge was corrupt. You don't have to reach that conclusion - at all - to declare the judge was wrong.
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.
