Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Was Scott Peterson innocent ?


Booth

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Sly Humour said:

 

Well said.

That is precisely the way the criminal justice system is supposed to work. It is a far more palatable outcome that a guilty person walks free than an innocent person is incarcerated or executed for a crime he or she didn’t commit. 

Unfortunately the jury in this trial monumentally misunderstood the concept of Moral Certainty beyond a Reasonable Doubt and convicted Scott Peterson. 

 We could ask Cameron Todd Willingham how that feels... but we’re too late.

 

Correct, they had "probable cause" he was guilty, which is much different than "reasonable doubt" I've never been on jury duty (felon) but I wonder if they explain the difference to jurors or even break down what they need to see to vote "guilty"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sly Humour said:

 

I suggest you read the post again. Even you can’t possibly miss the point a third time around. 

And the reason why you patting yourself on the back regarding the page number poke actually solidifies my opinion of you as a linear thinker is because three things never occurred to you. Speech to text is mainstream in 2018, 160 and 116 rhyme, and Sly might be using an iPad Pro when he posts.

So ponder that circumstantial evidence for a moment and if you are as astute as you’d like Booth to think you are then you’ll consider the possibility that I had the page number right all along and it was Siri who fumbled the ball.

 

Always someone else's fault...now you are blaming your blunders on AI? THAT is hilarious and why you go back on ignore. No wonder you support Scott, same lack of personal accountability. G'bye mate!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2018 at 11:09 AM, Jerry Gallo said:

I mean because a) this forum shows some would acquit regardless of facts and bee) more generally, there seems to be more contrarians in society on almost any topic these days, can't find consensus that water is wet anymore:lol:


... and you never will from anyone with an IQ over fifty. Water exists in three separate states... and only one of them is considered wet.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Always someone else's fault...now you are blaming your blunders on AI? THAT is hilarious and why you go back on ignore. No wonder you support Scott, same lack of personal accountability. G'bye mate!  

 

 

Don't let this confuse you, Jerry, but the fact that I was telling the truth means that we actually have you blaming AI's blunder on me. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LMAO...Sly fact-checking himself...narcissistic much? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

LMAO...Sly fact-checking himself...narcissistic much? :lol:


I presume that your third person approach is a calculated effort on your part to fool yourself into thinking that you kept that promise four posts earlier to slap me back on ignore?

I'm blown away by that impressive display of endurance!

Edited by Sly Humour
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2018 at 7:50 AM, Jerry Gallo said:

:lol: My post, I thought, was actually an admission that I would likely be an outlier in your scenario. I don't think a jury would have collectively convicted him without the bodies. As it relates to my fence-riding "probably could have", that was more in reference to having to decide that back then, without the benefit of 15 years of forum discussion and dissecting literally every word of the trial record. Plus, I'd have access to ALL the evidence, who knows what I would have found within that pro or con.

As for concession, what I listed was only a small portion of the CE that related specifically to the bodies. I still find every bit of the collection of CE equally suspicious and incriminating without the bodies. I would simply conclude the bodies washed out to sea or were swallowed by the muck in the bottom of the bay. For you, I comprehend you need physical evidence that didn't exist. And I comprehend that the lack of bodies would violate your sensibilities even further. Your requirement needs tangible things and I comprehend and respect that - letter of the law stuff. My requirement does not - CE that collectively doesn't have one reasonable thing that organically refutes it - spirit of the law stuff. Your requirement doesn't acknowledge behavioral evidence from a profile or investigative point of view and I respect that too. My requirement not only acknowledges it, but goes one step further. It asks the question, why didn't one thing organically appear on it's own within Scott's actions and words, his defense team's case, and all this discussion to give me pause? That isn't a question specifically for you to answer, it's just a question that has no legitimate answer as far as I can tell. 

Just one example...the Croton watch...IF that was a legitimate piece of evidence that could help Scott, I have no doubt that you or I would have PROVEN that rather than the defense or the infomercial going to great effort to blow up innuendo. One simple question for the pawn shop owner would have cleared it up. What happened to the watch? If it was Laci's watch and it was resold for a hefty profit because it was in fact her diamond encrusted watch that was pawned, he could produce a receipt for hundreds of dollars to prove it. If he kept it for nostalgic reasons, he could show it to us for comparison to the photo of it. Instead, they crafted a narrative that lacks corroboration. Corroboration is not required, but if it is that easy and natural to present it, why wouldn't you do so? Why put forth the effort to slander LE and interview the guy with vague generalities all these years later? Because it's not required or because it was a ruse? Nearly every talking point in this case in Scott's defense requires someone to elaborate on innuendo, piecemeal info and what is not rather than organic what is. Sorry if we are back at square one, just trying to explain that lack of concession isn't arguing against you, it's arguing against nature as it relates to Scott. Spirit of the law...blast me for that is you like, that's just where my head is sir.     

I don't know that we're back at square one necessarily, but there's a problem with your reasoning as it regards how we evaluate evidence. I'm not blasting you, but if the "spirit of the law" is all we need to follow, we could likely justify any conviction. Or acquittal, for that matter. Following the "letter of the law" is not something I do as a personal preference, nor is it a legal option for the jury; it is a requirement. Do you really think the Simpson jury believed he didn't do it? Of course not, but they were following what they perceived to be right and just; i.e. the "spirit of the law". Is that really the system you want?

And I want to make clear, again, that I'm not demanding tangible or physical evidence. It's perfectly reasonable -and I would have no qualms- convicting on CE alone, even without a body. Juries do this regularly, properly. But the CE must actually link the defendant to the crime, not simply make him appear guilty. As I've said, "most likely" is not the standard. The same is true of all the behavioral evidence. If a defendant lies about pertinent facts, or engages in other suspicious behavior, it's proper to consider that, and I'm willing to do so, to the extent that it corroborates other evidence. But it is not sufficient to stand on it's own.

You have a lot of questions about Scott's behavior. They're fair ones, and I share them. "Why did/didn't he do this/that if he hadn't killed Laci"? But I would argue there is an equal number of legitimate questions from the other side. "If Scott killed Laci, why would/wouldn't he have done this/that?"

I don't disagree with you on the Croton watch. I can't comment on the "infomercial" as I haven't seen it, but there was nothing to prevent Geragos from putting the pawn shop owner on the stand, much like the walk witnesses. You've done a good job deconstructing some of the defense theories. In many ways they were throwing spaghetti against the wall; I get that. But I still think you've failed to explain how Scott could've done what was alleged without leaving ANY evidence behind. They found nothing of value and no indication of clean up. Gas on the boat cover and some fertilizer on the tarp? Seriously? That's gonna destroy all of the biological traces and DNA? What about the truck? The boat? ZERO witnesses? It's all a little hard to swallow, man. You have to admit that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2018 at 6:45 PM, Booth said:

I don't know that we're back at square one necessarily, but there's a problem with your reasoning as it regards how we evaluate evidence. I'm not blasting you, but if the "spirit of the law" is all we need to follow, we could likely justify any conviction. Or acquittal, for that matter. Following the "letter of the law" is not something I do as a personal preference, nor is it a legal option for the jury; it is a requirement. Do you really think the Simpson jury believed he didn't do it? Of course not, but they were following what they perceived to be right and just; i.e. the "spirit of the law". Is that really the system you want?

But I didn't say it is all we need. I merely tried to illustrate that I feel the spirit of the law has a place in the courtroom. Again, if you disagree, that's your prerogative and I would never try to talk you out of that or tell you that you are wrong. If we followed the letter of the law, no one would ever get a warning for speeding, they'd always get a ticket. Low level drug dealers would serve their time in full. And we'd execute people the day after their last appeal is heard without hesitation. As for O.J., the law never entered in, evidence never really mattered. That was a pure case of activism - in my view anyway. The goal is to make sure those who committed the crime are convicted and those convicted committed the crime. I personally don't subscribe to the theory that laws to deal with one accused person were crafted to protect ten others and then rely on luck and hope to secure a rightful conviction. In other words, no credit should be given for a lucky or clever killer. If you think I am wrong on this, that's fair, but I'll go to my grave with my views the same.

On 7/21/2018 at 6:45 PM, Booth said:

And I want to make clear, again, that I'm not demanding tangible or physical evidence. It's perfectly reasonable -and I would have no qualms- convicting on CE alone, even without a body. Juries do this regularly, properly. But the CE must actually link the defendant to the crime, not simply make him appear guilty. As I've said, "most likely" is not the standard. The same is true of all the behavioral evidence. If a defendant lies about pertinent facts, or engages in other suspicious behavior, it's proper to consider that, and I'm willing to do so, to the extent that it corroborates other evidence. But it is not sufficient to stand on it's own.

The standard is beyond reasonable doubt. We've been arguing the reasonable part since day one. Obviously "reasonable" is subjective. When I argue this case on your board here, I do not come at it from a Jerry v. Booth purpose or even necessarily a Jerry v. Scott one. I come at it from a Jerry v. reasonable analysis of the data we have. When I come across information, I ask myself what does the info say on it's own. I look at Watsonville, CA on Google Maps knowing that was a place of interest in an internet search of Pacific Ocean access. I consider the mindset of a person who thinks it's a good idea to take a 14ft boat with a small motor into the Pacific Ocean alone...to fish on a whim when time permits. In and of itself, this is not reasonable behavior. So then I apply when did he do this search. Two things jump out...immediately after he was exposed and before he bought a boat. Had he done the search in July of that year, had he bought an ocean capable boat, that would change things. But those things didn't occur, so I have to go on what did. Doesn't matter what you, I, the prosecutor or MG say about it, what occurred in spite of us? We argue why...applying our version of reasonable to it. I don't comprehend some versions of reasonable here, without prejudice or animosity.

On 7/21/2018 at 6:45 PM, Booth said:

You have a lot of questions about Scott's behavior. They're fair ones, and I share them. "Why did/didn't he do this/that if he hadn't killed Laci"? But I would argue there is an equal number of legitimate questions from the other side. "If Scott killed Laci, why would/wouldn't he have done this/that?"

I'd agree that there are legitimate questions from the other side. I would disagree that it is equal. What I would likely offer as my reason there are unanswered questions for the other side is that no one is perfect, certainly not when it comes to murder. Why didn't he cover every base, why didn't he hide a lot of the CE? I can only surmise that I myself couldn't conceive of pulling something like this off without a few mistakes when things go sideways. I'd also offer that why he did something we know he did is not apples to apples with why he didn't do something we might think he should or would have done. Why did Booth turn the oven up 100 degrees on the meatloaf? Maybe he hated his wife's meatloaf or maybe he wanted to go out for sushi. Maybe he mistook the temp for the time. We don't know why, but he did it regardless. Now, we can say, why didn't Booth tell his wife before she prepped the meatloaf that he hates it or would rather have sushi? Why didn't Booth take more care in his adjustment. Doesn't matter, you did none of those things. Now, add the fact you made a reservation at a sushi place five minutes before you nuked momma's dinner and that paints a better picture. I mean c'mon man, what's wrong with your lady's food bro, just eat it for crying out loud! LOL  

On 7/21/2018 at 6:45 PM, Booth said:

I don't disagree with you on the Croton watch. I can't comment on the "infomercial" as I haven't seen it, but there was nothing to prevent Geragos from putting the pawn shop owner on the stand, much like the walk witnesses. You've done a good job deconstructing some of the defense theories. In many ways they were throwing spaghetti against the wall; I get that. But I still think you've failed to explain how Scott could've done what was alleged without leaving ANY evidence behind. They found nothing of value and no indication of clean up. Gas on the boat cover and some fertilizer on the tarp? Seriously? That's gonna destroy all of the biological traces and DNA? What about the truck? The boat? ZERO witnesses? It's all a little hard to swallow, man. You have to admit that.

I concede this, feel like I have for awhile now. I think the difference between you and I is that I don't see it being too hard to have done this without the evidence. Strangle or suffocate, no forensics that weren't naturally occurring. Plastic, tarp or rug that weren't recovered. Had the means and time to attach anchors at the warehouse. We don't know what Scott did between 8:30p on 23rd and 2:12p on the 24th. Two trips to the warehouse, two to the bay - could either have occurred in the dark of night? Boat covered with the canvas cover, soaked in gas to mask scent. Clothes washed when he got home. Who knows what was done in Livermore? And folks said they saw the boat and truck, I discount most because they never testified. No others came forward to help Scott either. So, we agree that the prosecution's case may have lacked specifics or had some inaccuracies. Letter of the law doesn't allow for that, spirit of the law does. If their theory of how he got her from her home to the bay was all they had, I'd lean a lot further your way. Based on all the other stuff, him being unlucky to have her abducted, killed and planted in the midst of all that CE...I don't find that reasonable.

That said, wanna be clear here, I never said "based on your reasoning and expectation, I could see why you were an acquit" was never a slam or insult. If I shared your standards, I likely would be an acquit and if you shared mine, I'm sure you would have pulled the trap door. I don't oppose the DP conviction in this case, per se, but I wouldn't have opposed LWOP in the jury room if that was the consensus. Perhaps it's a concession due to this being a CE case, perhaps it's my applying spirit of the law in Scott's favor.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

 

The standard is beyond reasonable doubt. We've been arguing the reasonable part since day one. Obviously "reasonable" is subjective. When I argue this case on your board here, I do not come at it from a Jerry v. Booth purpose or even necessarily a Jerry v. Scott one. I come at it from a Jerry v. reasonable analysis of the data we have. When I come across information, I ask myself what does the info say on it's own. I look at Watsonville, CA on Google Maps knowing that was a place of interest in an internet search of Pacific Ocean access. I consider the mindset of a person who thinks it's a good idea to take a 14ft boat with a small motor into the Pacific Ocean alone...to fish on a whim when time permits. In and of itself, this is not reasonable behavior. So then I apply when did he do this search. Two things jump out...immediately after he was exposed and before he bought a boat. Had he done the search in July of that year, had he bought an ocean capable boat, that would change things. But those things didn't occur, so I have to go on what did. Doesn't matter what you, I, the prosecutor or MG say about it, what occurred in spite of us? We argue why...applying our version of reasonable to it. I don't comprehend some versions of reasonable here, without prejudice or animosity.


Yes, let's take a closer look at that mindset...

On December 08 , 2002 stupid Scott performs internet searches of boats, ramps, the ocean, and Watsonville as part of his carefully crafted but ridiculously complicated plan to kill his wife, and all the while never considers that Law Enforcement will confiscates his computers once his wife is reported missing and be disgusted by his stupidity.

But then on December 24, 2002 clever Scott performs internet searches of weather vanes, umbrella stands, the scarves, and San Jose as part of his carefully crafted but ridiculously complicated plan to kill his wife and then slaps himself on the back for considering that Law Enforcement will confiscate his computers once his wife is reported missing and be impressed by his ingenuity.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2018 at 8:25 AM, Jerry Gallo said:

But I didn't say it is all we need. I merely tried to illustrate that I feel the spirit of the law has a place in the courtroom. Again, if you disagree, that's your prerogative and I would never try to talk you out of that or tell you that you are wrong. If we followed the letter of the law, no one would ever get a warning for speeding, they'd always get a ticket. Low level drug dealers would serve their time in full. And we'd execute people the day after their last appeal is heard without hesitation. As for O.J., the law never entered in, evidence never really mattered. That was a pure case of activism - in my view anyway. The goal is to make sure those who committed the crime are convicted and those convicted committed the crime. I personally don't subscribe to the theory that laws to deal with one accused person were crafted to protect ten others and then rely on luck and hope to secure a rightful conviction. In other words, no credit should be given for a lucky or clever killer. If you think I am wrong on this, that's fair, but I'll go to my grave with my views the same.

The standard is beyond reasonable doubt. We've been arguing the reasonable part since day one. Obviously "reasonable" is subjective. When I argue this case on your board here, I do not come at it from a Jerry v. Booth purpose or even necessarily a Jerry v. Scott one. I come at it from a Jerry v. reasonable analysis of the data we have. When I come across information, I ask myself what does the info say on it's own. I look at Watsonville, CA on Google Maps knowing that was a place of interest in an internet search of Pacific Ocean access. I consider the mindset of a person who thinks it's a good idea to take a 14ft boat with a small motor into the Pacific Ocean alone...to fish on a whim when time permits. In and of itself, this is not reasonable behavior. So then I apply when did he do this search. Two things jump out...immediately after he was exposed and before he bought a boat. Had he done the search in July of that year, had he bought an ocean capable boat, that would change things. But those things didn't occur, so I have to go on what did. Doesn't matter what you, I, the prosecutor or MG say about it, what occurred in spite of us? We argue why...applying our version of reasonable to it. I don't comprehend some versions of reasonable here, without prejudice or animosity.

I'd agree that there are legitimate questions from the other side. I would disagree that it is equal. What I would likely offer as my reason there are unanswered questions for the other side is that no one is perfect, certainly not when it comes to murder. Why didn't he cover every base, why didn't he hide a lot of the CE? I can only surmise that I myself couldn't conceive of pulling something like this off without a few mistakes when things go sideways. I'd also offer that why he did something we know he did is not apples to apples with why he didn't do something we might think he should or would have done. Why did Booth turn the oven up 100 degrees on the meatloaf? Maybe he hated his wife's meatloaf or maybe he wanted to go out for sushi. Maybe he mistook the temp for the time. We don't know why, but he did it regardless. Now, we can say, why didn't Booth tell his wife before she prepped the meatloaf that he hates it or would rather have sushi? Why didn't Booth take more care in his adjustment. Doesn't matter, you did none of those things. Now, add the fact you made a reservation at a sushi place five minutes before you nuked momma's dinner and that paints a better picture. I mean c'mon man, what's wrong with your lady's food bro, just eat it for crying out loud! LOL  

I concede this, feel like I have for awhile now. I think the difference between you and I is that I don't see it being too hard to have done this without the evidence. Strangle or suffocate, no forensics that weren't naturally occurring. Plastic, tarp or rug that weren't recovered. Had the means and time to attach anchors at the warehouse. We don't know what Scott did between 8:30p on 23rd and 2:12p on the 24th. Two trips to the warehouse, two to the bay - could either have occurred in the dark of night? Boat covered with the canvas cover, soaked in gas to mask scent. Clothes washed when he got home. Who knows what was done in Livermore? And folks said they saw the boat and truck, I discount most because they never testified. No others came forward to help Scott either. So, we agree that the prosecution's case may have lacked specifics or had some inaccuracies. Letter of the law doesn't allow for that, spirit of the law does. If their theory of how he got her from her home to the bay was all they had, I'd lean a lot further your way. Based on all the other stuff, him being unlucky to have her abducted, killed and planted in the midst of all that CE...I don't find that reasonable.

That said, wanna be clear here, I never said "based on your reasoning and expectation, I could see why you were an acquit" was never a slam or insult. If I shared your standards, I likely would be an acquit and if you shared mine, I'm sure you would have pulled the trap door. I don't oppose the DP conviction in this case, per se, but I wouldn't have opposed LWOP in the jury room if that was the consensus. Perhaps it's a concession due to this being a CE case, perhaps it's my applying spirit of the law in Scott's favor.    

I get what you're saying, but understand there's a big difference between giving cops and judges discretion versus allowing jurors to consider the "spirit of the law". Particularly in today's age of universal suffrage, I think that's a very dangerous idea. And of course we want to convict the guilty, but the importance of never convicting the innocent takes precedent. That isn't a mere theory, but a founding principle of our system.

Well, you make a fair point in that what's reasonable to some may not be reasonable to others. Maybe where we differ is in our life experiences. Scott didn't actually go fishing on a whim, but nonetheless, you think a man going fishing on a whim is unreasonable? Taking a small boat into an ocean bay is unreasonable? Lots of people do these things every single day. I don't see anything unreasonable about either.

I agree it isn't apples to apples; what he did needs to be considered far greater than what we think he would've/could've/should've done.The problem here is that Scott was expected to be perfect, and if he wasn't, the jury was asked to believe it was evidence of murder. " He wasn't a perfect husband, his recollection wasn't perfect, he didn't have the perfect fishing tackle, he forgot the umbrellas, he once made a joke in poor taste, etc." Somehow we're to believe this very imperfect man pulled off an evidence-free crime, but at the same time did so many incredibly foolish things. 

People who are killed, particularly when strangled, often lose control of their bladder and/or bowels. They cough and aspirate saliva and blood. They "leak fluids", for lack of a better term. The tarp was recovered; that was the blue tarp, and that is what the prosecution argued Scott used to wrap the body. It contained no evidence whatsoever. Neither we nor the jury can speculate that "Well, since the state's claim seems so implausible, there must've been some other plastic, tarp or rug." That's what you're doing. And sure, it's conceivable that Scott could've made and tied off these imaginary anchors. Just offer one single shred of evidence that it actually happened, or that one ever existed. 
Two trips to the warehouse and the bay? The state never argued any of this. You are essentially acknowledging that their entire narrative is implausible.Their theory(fantasy) on how Scott killed Laci is what you must believe in order to find Scott guilty! Do you not realize what you're doing? You are taking the gaping holes in their case and creating a totally speculative alternative scenario in order to fill them. "Well, he may have done this, he may have done that..." That isn't how the system works!

After this post, Jerry, I'm honestly not sure what your standards are. Is it enough for the state to show that Scott seems guilty? Might be guilty? Probably guilty, even if they can't present a plausible scenario as to how/when/where?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2018 at 6:27 PM, Booth said:

I get what you're saying, but understand there's a big difference between giving cops and judges discretion versus allowing jurors to consider the "spirit of the law". Particularly in today's age of universal suffrage, I think that's a very dangerous idea. And of course we want to convict the guilty, but the importance of never convicting the innocent takes precedent. That isn't a mere theory, but a founding principle of our system.

Well, you make a fair point in that what's reasonable to some may not be reasonable to others. Maybe where we differ is in our life experiences. Scott didn't actually go fishing on a whim, but nonetheless, you think a man going fishing on a whim is unreasonable? Taking a small boat into an ocean bay is unreasonable? Lots of people do these things every single day. I don't see anything unreasonable about either.

I agree it isn't apples to apples; what he did needs to be considered far greater than what we think he would've/could've/should've done.The problem here is that Scott was expected to be perfect, and if he wasn't, the jury was asked to believe it was evidence of murder. " He wasn't a perfect husband, his recollection wasn't perfect, he didn't have the perfect fishing tackle, he forgot the umbrellas, he once made a joke in poor taste, etc." Somehow we're to believe this very imperfect man pulled off an evidence-free crime, but at the same time did so many incredibly foolish things. 

People who are killed, particularly when strangled, often lose control of their bladder and/or bowels. They cough and aspirate saliva and blood. They "leak fluids", for lack of a better term. The tarp was recovered; that was the blue tarp, and that is what the prosecution argued Scott used to wrap the body. It contained no evidence whatsoever. Neither we nor the jury can speculate that "Well, since the state's claim seems so implausible, there must've been some other plastic, tarp or rug." That's what you're doing. And sure, it's conceivable that Scott could've made and tied off these imaginary anchors. Just offer one single shred of evidence that it actually happened, or that one ever existed. 
Two trips to the warehouse and the bay? The state never argued any of this. You are essentially acknowledging that their entire narrative is implausible.Their theory(fantasy) on how Scott killed Laci is what you must believe in order to find Scott guilty! Do you not realize what you're doing? You are taking the gaping holes in their case and creating a totally speculative alternative scenario in order to fill them. "Well, he may have done this, he may have done that..." That isn't how the system works!

After this post, Jerry, I'm honestly not sure what your standards are. Is it enough for the state to show that Scott seems guilty? Might be guilty? Probably guilty, even if they can't present a plausible scenario as to how/when/where?

 

Looks like the place has cleared out and we're back to repetitive commentary. Perhaps the next step of the appellate process will provide some interesting discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Looks like the place has cleared out and we're back to repetitive commentary. Perhaps the next step of the appellate process will provide some interesting discussion.

"Interesting" discussion? Surely, by that you actually mean productive...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Regi said:

"Interesting" discussion? Surely, by that you actually mean productive...

You say toe-may-toe, I say the same thing! LOL

Edited by Jerry Gallo
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2018 at 9:43 AM, Jerry Gallo said:

Looks like the place has cleared out and we're back to repetitive commentary. Perhaps the next step of the appellate process will provide some interesting discussion.

I guess you're right in that regard. Though not exactly back to square one, there's not much left to say and we're beating a dead horse at this point. Just be prepared to eat some crow when this case comes back...:D:D:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Booth said:

I guess you're right in that regard. Though not exactly back to square one, there's not much left to say and we're beating a dead horse at this point. Just be prepared to eat some crow when this case comes back...:D:D:D

If a guilt phase reversal or better occurs for Scott, I will humbly take my medicine. Anything less, a simple golf clap from the other side will suffice! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2018 at 3:20 PM, Sly Humour said:


Yes, let's take a closer look at that mindset...

On December 08 , 2002 stupid Scott performs internet searches of boats, ramps, the ocean, and Watsonville as part of his carefully crafted but ridiculously complicated plan to kill his wife, and all the while never considers that Law Enforcement will confiscates his computers once his wife is reported missing and be disgusted by his stupidity.

But then on December 24, 2002 clever Scott performs internet searches of weather vanes, umbrella stands, the scarves, and San Jose as part of his carefully crafted but ridiculously complicated plan to kill his wife and then slaps himself on the back for considering that Law Enforcement will confiscate his computers once his wife is reported missing and be impressed by his ingenuity.

 

Exactly.

Similar to stupid Scott calls his temporary side piece using his own cell phone and also takes Amber's calls on that phone, because he never considers that Law enforcement will confiscate his phone records.

But smart Scott calls Laci's cell on his way home from the Marina on 12/24 because he expected that Law Enforcement would check his phone records.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both smart Scott and stupid Scott spent day number 4890 in prison today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2018-08-06 at 6:36 PM, Jerry Gallo said:

Both smart Scott and stupid Scott spent day number 4890 in prison today.

 

... and he has the monumental ineptitude of Grogan, Brocchini, and Buehler to thank for that. 

I understand completely how a lack of post secondary education among them contributed to the fact that they nailed the wrong guy... but what’s your excuse for getting it wrong?

Personnaly I would be embarrassed to have arrived at the same conclusion as Double O Nick.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Meanwhile, I’m certain that Scott includes those additional 698 days prior to March 17, 2005 as part of the middle school count.

Minus those days at the defence table in Redwood City, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. JUROR RICHELLE NICE IMPROPERLY CONCEALED INFORMATION DURING VOIR DIRE

2. THE STATE PRESENTED FALSE EVIDENCE AS TO WHEN CONNER STOPPED GROWING

3. TRIAL COUNSEL PROVIDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN FAILING TO CALL AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD OF FETAL DEVELOPMENT

4. THE STATE PRESENTED FALSE EVIDENCE AS TO THE DOG SCENT EVIDENCE

5. COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN FAILING TO CALL A DOG-SCENT EXPERT

6. THE STATE PRESENTED FALSE EVIDENCE OF WHERE THE BODIES WERE PUT IN THE WATER MAY BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED

7. COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN FAILING TO CALL AN EXPERT ON THE MOVEMENT OF BODIES IN WATER

8. COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN PROMISING BUT FAILING TO PRESENT, TESTIMONY THAT WOULD DISPROVE THE STATE’S THEORY AND ESTABLISH PETITIONER’S INNOCENCE

9. COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN FAILING TO CALL WITNESSES WHO SAW LACI PETERSON WALKING HER DOG ON DECEMBER 24 AFTER SCOTT LEFT FOR THE MARINA

10. COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN FAILING TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT BURGLAR STEVEN TODD SAW LACI LATE ON THE MORNING OF DECEMBER 24 AFTER SCOTT LEFT FOR THE MARINA

Based on the above filed August 7, Scott will never receive a new trial. As for exhibits, still sealed except two? Gardner still gutless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

1. JUROR RICHELLE NICE IMPROPERLY CONCEALED INFORMATION DURING VOIR DIRE

2. THE STATE PRESENTED FALSE EVIDENCE AS TO WHEN CONNER STOPPED GROWING

3. TRIAL COUNSEL PROVIDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN FAILING TO CALL AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD OF FETAL DEVELOPMENT

4. THE STATE PRESENTED FALSE EVIDENCE AS TO THE DOG SCENT EVIDENCE

5. COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN FAILING TO CALL A DOG-SCENT EXPERT

6. THE STATE PRESENTED FALSE EVIDENCE OF WHERE THE BODIES WERE PUT IN THE WATER MAY BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED

7. COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN FAILING TO CALL AN EXPERT ON THE MOVEMENT OF BODIES IN WATER

8. COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN PROMISING BUT FAILING TO PRESENT, TESTIMONY THAT WOULD DISPROVE THE STATE’S THEORY AND ESTABLISH PETITIONER’S INNOCENCE

9. COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN FAILING TO CALL WITNESSES WHO SAW LACI PETERSON WALKING HER DOG ON DECEMBER 24 AFTER SCOTT LEFT FOR THE MARINA

10. COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN FAILING TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT BURGLAR STEVEN TODD SAW LACI LATE ON THE MORNING OF DECEMBER 24 AFTER SCOTT LEFT FOR THE MARINA

Based on the above filed August 7, Scott will never receive a new trial. As for exhibits, still sealed except two? Gardner still gutless.

 

You're welcome to swing with that opinion but so far nothing you've posted on this topic since you first stepped up to the plate on September 13, 2017 has earned you a home run. In fact, the sad truth is that you haven't even connected with the ball yet. 

But stick around here anyway... no matter how bad you bat, we'll make you better batter. Guaranteed.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2018 at 10:05 AM, Jerry Gallo said:

1. JUROR RICHELLE NICE IMPROPERLY CONCEALED INFORMATION DURING VOIR DIRE

2. THE STATE PRESENTED FALSE EVIDENCE AS TO WHEN CONNER STOPPED GROWING

3. TRIAL COUNSEL PROVIDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN FAILING TO CALL AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD OF FETAL DEVELOPMENT

4. THE STATE PRESENTED FALSE EVIDENCE AS TO THE DOG SCENT EVIDENCE

5. COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN FAILING TO CALL A DOG-SCENT EXPERT

6. THE STATE PRESENTED FALSE EVIDENCE OF WHERE THE BODIES WERE PUT IN THE WATER MAY BE SUMMARILY DISMISSED

7. COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN FAILING TO CALL AN EXPERT ON THE MOVEMENT OF BODIES IN WATER

8. COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN PROMISING BUT FAILING TO PRESENT, TESTIMONY THAT WOULD DISPROVE THE STATE’S THEORY AND ESTABLISH PETITIONER’S INNOCENCE

9. COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN FAILING TO CALL WITNESSES WHO SAW LACI PETERSON WALKING HER DOG ON DECEMBER 24 AFTER SCOTT LEFT FOR THE MARINA

10. COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN FAILING TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT BURGLAR STEVEN TODD SAW LACI LATE ON THE MORNING OF DECEMBER 24 AFTER SCOTT LEFT FOR THE MARINA

Based on the above filed August 7, Scott will never receive a new trial. As for exhibits, still sealed except two? Gardner still gutless.

You may very well be right. I think all of these are valid questions to raise, but with the exception of #1, do not rise to the level of reversible error. Dog-scent evidence, as laughable as it is, has been accepted by the courts for some time. So, barring a ruling that overturns years of precedent, it's going to stand. And as I've said before, I think Geragos's work on this case was poor overall, but not so bad as to meet the burden of ineffective counsel. That's what this appellate team seems to be hanging their hat on, and maybe they know something I don't, but it looks like a dead end to me. 

Did the final 12 jurors represent a fair and impartial jury? This filing only mentions Nice. What about Jackson? Or even Gorman? There are legitimate issues with this jury and their behavior. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2018 at 10:04 PM, Booth said:

You may very well be right. I think all of these are valid questions to raise, but with the exception of #1, do not rise to the level of reversible error. Dog-scent evidence, as laughable as it is, has been accepted by the courts for some time. So, barring a ruling that overturns years of precedent, it's going to stand. And as I've said before, I think Geragos's work on this case was poor overall, but not so bad as to meet the burden of ineffective counsel. That's what this appellate team seems to be hanging their hat on, and maybe they know something I don't, but it looks like a dead end to me. 

Did the final 12 jurors represent a fair and impartial jury? This filing only mentions Nice. What about Jackson? Or even Gorman? There are legitimate issues with this jury and their behavior. 

Most of us here are likely a little too close to this case to be totally objective. Admittedly, I do not have insight on juror conduct and how much stock an appellate court might place on the four questions re: the jury (adding Falconer). If JF and FG were rightfully dismissed for violating simple rules, they are likely non-issues. To some, Jackson could be seen as a victim of bullying or someone interested in stonewalling or drilling down into minutia on a trial that was already pretty long...either opinion could be an issue or could be nothing burgers. I still contend that to those of us who understand legal nuance, that we may have correlated lawsuit with a RO. But proving she knowingly understood the correlation and lied to become an alternate who would eventually sit on the jury and convict, I think that is the only real issue at hand. And honestly, I put things at 3/1 against the defense on the issue. If Nice was a slam dunk reversal issue, regardless of how slow the justice system can be, I'd think that is an obvious enough issue to have come to fruition well before now. MG okayed her and I'd bet large sums of my money that MG was aware of her civil court history before the end of the trial. He thought she was money for them, just another miscalculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/20/2018 at 10:55 AM, Jerry Gallo said:

Most of us here are likely a little too close to this case to be totally objective. Admittedly, I do not have insight on juror conduct and how much stock an appellate court might place on the four questions re: the jury (adding Falconer). If JF and FG were rightfully dismissed for violating simple rules, they are likely non-issues. To some, Jackson could be seen as a victim of bullying or someone interested in stonewalling or drilling down into minutia on a trial that was already pretty long...either opinion could be an issue or could be nothing burgers. I still contend that to those of us who understand legal nuance, that we may have correlated lawsuit with a RO. But proving she knowingly understood the correlation and lied to become an alternate who would eventually sit on the jury and convict, I think that is the only real issue at hand. And honestly, I put things at 3/1 against the defense on the issue. If Nice was a slam dunk reversal issue, regardless of how slow the justice system can be, I'd think that is an obvious enough issue to have come to fruition well before now. MG okayed her and I'd bet large sums of my money that MG was aware of her civil court history before the end of the trial. He thought she was money for them, just another miscalculation.

I don't necessarily believe Nice lied. I highly doubt she was bright enough to understand the correlation.  But deliberate or not, the information she provided was false. Decisions were made based on that false information. Whether that's enough is a legal question I can't answer. I agree that MG was aware of Nice's history at some point before the verdict, or at the very least, should have been. Jackson, from everything I've heard as an outsider and a layman, seems like a better route to go. Why did he want to be excused? What did he tell the judge? His post-trial comments suggest he was being threatened or bullied, and he was obviously pro-defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.