MERGED: SCOTT PETERSON THREAD

That's exactly why is pays to be a good criminal. Cover your tracks, leave no evidence, and the jury has no choice but to let you walk. Unless of course, they have a brain and can see through the hogwash. Looks like Scotty wasn't a good criminal and they "washed his hog" for sure.

 

Yes you are missing something.

I said OJ verdict was correct

I also said Oj was guilty

THose two things can be possible at the same time.

How you ask?

Well just because OJ was guilty doesn't mean he should be convicted. That is the point you are not seeing. He can be guilty, but if there is reasonable doubt a jury should not convict. THus, though OJ was probably guilty in killing Nicole and Ron, his verdict was correct, because the jury had reasonable doubt (they had to have, there were so many holes in the case) and thus they did not convict.

Similarly, I believe Scott was guiilty. However, there was not enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. THus though Scott was guilty, the Jury got the verdict wrong, imho.

Hope that clears it up, buddy

 

I don't really think the jury necessarily had a brain. More like Geragos sucked, and the sympathy for connor/laci>Scott. Unfortunate, but that is life.

 

Ryan,
Believe me, I understand criminal law and burdens of proof...

I understood exactly what you were saying from the beginning.
You think that he probably did it but that the case wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, you think that he should have been found not guilty. I disagree with you, in that I do think that the case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nowhere did I accuse you of thinking him "innocent." Hence, my use of the phrase "not guilty." I don't see how I could have been more clear.

In future, I'd think twice about accusing people of a reading comprehension deficiency.

 

Ryan's gonna be my lawyer when I whack my wife....I mean when she has a little accident.

 

Shhhhh, <whisper> chipper/shredder</whisper>

 

Damn right! And unlike prissy ass Geragos, I will do whatever it takes to stay by my client at the time of verdict.

BTW Doc, I take payments in daughters

 

I think the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that anyone else may have done the crime.

 

Im 99% sure he did it but I wish there was one more piece of evidence that really tied it together. I think he will get life not death for that reason. It will be appealed anyway.

 

Nah, you should hope he's a juror ! Then again, they eliminated the sole lawyer (and the sole doctor) from this jury, from what I hear ?

 

the reason he wasnt at the verdict was because he learned from Peterson's mistakes. See, he just murdered his wife and is getting out of dodge and not getting caught near the border. I wonder if hitmen get payed as well as attorneys? Because Geragos is probably in for a new line of work.

 

He had told the judge that he had a commement on Friday in LA and the judge told him if a verdict came down, they would not hold it up for his arrival.
So, he was stuck in LA, since he only had 1.5 hours to get his losing ass up here.

 

He really wasn't as "stuck" as people are saying. If he really wanted to be there, he could have easily got a private jet to take him.

He has done those kind of things in other cases before.

He showed an utter lack of class and respect for his client.

Too bad, high profile defendants will still hire him, just because of all the publicity he has gotten with this and losing the WInona Rider case.

 

Exactly what I meant by showing a lack of class. Thumbsdown to Geragos.

 

Screw Geragos. He should've used F. Lee Bailey.

 

I thought he was disbarred. Or dead. Or in rehab. Or retired. Or divorced. Or something.

 

Makes for interesting reading:

as a result:

 

I remember when he was doing the time because I went to school at Florida State and he did the time in Tallahassee. We thought about poppin in and saying 'hi, hows the slammer goin'.

 

Peterson was convicted of being a 1st Degree adulturer, and a 2nd degree idiot.

If he'd broken it off with Amber on 12/26 (hey, he didn't want to ruin her Christmas), told police about the affair, not acted aloof towards his family about Laci's disappearance, not gone to the Bay like 6-times "just to look" and refered to his wife in the passed tense, AND NOT RUN OFF WITH A BUNCH OF CASH IN A NEWLY PURCHASED CAR AND DIED HAIR, he'd have been aquited.

The jury would have appreciated a remorseful adulterer who saw the error of his ways when his wife dissappeared (You know, "You don't know what you got 'till it's gone), cried about her death, acted more loving towards his family and in-laws and not basically not looking guilty.

Most of them made up there minds when Fry took the stand. The only ones who took notes got kicked off and in 7-hours the 'new' jury decided he was guilty. TOTAL BS. They didn't review a piece of evidence after the foreman was dismissed. One had surgury scheduled for 15-Nov. and the others wanted to be home for Thanksgiving. Now I want Art and Frank to come on here and spew BS about how we use the jury works for criminal trials so it's OK for lawsuits - this case, and the OJ case shows the jury system in fact does not work that great and needs to be revamped (Don't get me started about the jury selection process and jury consultants - once again the guy with the most money wins!).

Goros' absense IMO was a calculated move, as was his brief defense. I think he knew the foremen would drag out deliberations and actually review the evidence (or lack there off) and this would help alleviete the prosecutions strength (that Peterson was an ****** so he MUST have done it). The foreman being removed was a huge blow to there case and he knew right then it was over. Goros' did not show up on Friday to lay the ground work for incompetent defense appeal (HEY, my lawyer wasn't even here for the verdict judge - OK maybe not but it doesn't hurt).

 

Sean,

Right on with everything you said. However, the attorney's name was Geragos.

 

If there was ever a case for appeal this is it. It's going to be very interesting when the facts come out about the removal of the last two jurors during deliberation. Did the judge remove the foreman on some pretense to end the deadlock?

It's a little scary that a jury could convict this guy on the evidence presented. Makes me think of some old western movies with torches and ropes. Sure, he must have done it....but beyond a reasonable doubt? No way.