Awaiting the Peterson verdict.... - Page 3

Mad4stevie · #31 11-12-2004, 03:26 PM

You know, for all the hoopla, I really don't think Geragos is "all that". That boat stunt is enough to make me truly sick (on at least a moral level), and the fact that he made so many "mistakes" during the trial just blows me away. Examples:

1. He promised that he would show that Scott is "stone-cold innocent" in his opening statement as well as promising to prove that the baby was born much later than the time Laci disappeared. He didn't deliver on either count.

2. He was making jokes during the trial much to the disgust of the jury.

3. His expert witness imploded on the stand.

dissention · #32 11-12-2004, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

It will be interesting to see. But, I agree, it could be guilty. This case has just been bizarre from the get go. I mean what was up with replacing a juror during deliberations right after asking the judge to reinstriuct them and two or so days later a verdict.

In any event, in 40 or so minutes and we will know

BTW - didn't the judge allow the jury not to convict for the death penalty, which, if so, could have allowed the jury to be surer of their actions.

The juror was replaced because their fiancee's relative is buying the restaurant Scott used to own.

Mad4stevie · #33 11-12-2004, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patti

I just heard on the radio that the jury has reached a verdict. It will be read at 4pm eastern time.

Yes. The judge did not allow video in the courtroom, but did allow an audio feed to be broadcast. It will be live on courttv.com for those who don't have access to the TV.

dissention · #34 11-12-2004, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

You know, for all the hoopla, I really don't think Geragos is "all that". That boat stunt is enough to make me truly sick (on at least a moral level), and the fact that he made so many "mistakes" during the trial just blows me away. Examples:

1. He promised that he would show that Scott is "stone-cold innocent" in his opening statement as well as promising to prove that the baby was born much later than the time Laci disappeared. He didn't deliver on either count.

2. He was making jokes during the trial much to the disgust of the jury.

3. His expert witness imploded on the stand.

I've always maintained that he is a horrifically bad lawyer of epic proportions. All of his big cases from the past few years have been lost, have imploded, and/or ended in his firing. His stunts ALWAYS backfire (Winona, Jacko, Peterson) and he doesn't just have egg on his face, he has an omelette all over his suit.

strandinthewind · #35 11-12-2004, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

The juror was replaced because their fiancee's relative is buying the restaurant Scott used to own.

OOPS!!!!!

But, as long as there is no direct connection, e.g. not buying it directly from SP and SP has no interest in it, then that is not a huge problem

This is the second replaced juror - there was a first one right?

Tick Tock Tick Tock

Mad4stevie · #36 11-12-2004, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

I've always maintained that he is a horrifically bad lawyer of epic proportions. All of his big cases from the past few years have been lost, have imploded, and/or ended in his firing. His stunts ALWAYS backfire (Winona, Jacko, Peterson) and he doesn't just have egg on his face, he has an omelette all over his suit.

Wow - we agree on two points!!

He does seem to take on cases with people who are pathological liers. Amazing. If I were a criminal defendant there is no way in hell I would want him - LOL!

strandinthewind · #37 11-12-2004, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

You know, for all the hoopla, I really don't think Geragos is "all that". That boat stunt is enough to make me truly sick (on at least a moral level), and the fact that he made so many "mistakes" during the trial just blows me away. Examples:

1. He promised that he would show that Scott is "stone-cold innocent" in his opening statement as well as promising to prove that the baby was born much later than the time Laci disappeared. He didn't deliver on either count.

2. He was making jokes during the trial much to the disgust of the jury.

3. His expert witness imploded on the stand.

For the life of me, I cannot understand WHY he is held in such high regard. Maybe his nonfamous work is good, but his last several famous ones were horrid.

dissention · #38 11-12-2004, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

OOPS!!!!!

But, as long as there is no direct connection, e.g. not buying it directly from SP and SP has no interest in it, then that is not a huge problem

This is the second replaced juror - there was a first one right?

Tick Tock Tick Tock

They didn't give a reason for the second juror's dismissal. I'm sure we'll hear why once this is all over, though. That juror that was dismissed very early on in the trial is annoying as hell; he knows next to nothing about the case, yet they have him on all the talk shows for his "expert opinion." I just about went bonkers when he was giving commentary on the Kobe Bryant case.

What a hack.

Mad4stevie · #39 11-12-2004, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

OOPS!!!!!

But, as long as there is no direct connection, e.g. not buying it directly from SP and SP has no interest in it, then that is not a huge problem

This is the second replaced juror - there was a first one right?

Tick Tock Tick Tock

I am amazed at how many seemingly "problem" jurors made it onto the jury. The doctor/lawyer who was ousted, etc. Very interesting . . .

I was shocked to find out that they allowed a lawyer onto the panel.

Mad4stevie · #40 11-12-2004, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

For the life of me, I cannot understand WHY he is held in such high regard. Maybe his nonfamous work is good, but his last several famous ones were horrid.

Yes. How about his allowing Michael Jackson to show up late to his hearing and allowing that circus atmosphere. Completely ridiculous.

dissention · #41 11-12-2004, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

Wow - we agree on two points!!

He does seem to take on cases with people who are pathological liers. Amazing. If I were a criminal defendant there is no way in hell I would want him - LOL!

1. After seeing the tapes of Winona stealing merchandise, he continued to maintain that she had receipts and that he had seen them. He also claimed to have the prescriptions in his possession. He lost the case.

2. He not-so-subtley threatened all witnesses in the Jacko case by exclaiming he would come down on them "like a ton of bricks." He also led the charge that Jacko was abused in police custody. He was quickly fired.

3. Every stunt of his in the Peterson case has backfired and the jurors, by all accounts, loathe him. He will lose it.

HE'S AWWWWWWWWWWWWFUL.

Mad4stevie · #42 11-12-2004, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

They didn't give a reason for the second juror's dismissal. I'm sure we'll hear why once this is all over, though. That juror that was dismissed very early on in the trial is annoying as hell; he knows next to nothing about the case, yet they have him on all the talk shows for his "expert opinion." I just about went bonkers when he was giving commentary on the Kobe Bryant case.

What a hack.

Juror Justin Falconer was dismissed about a month into the case because he had an "encounter" with Laci Peterson's brother in the courthouse.

The second juror was supposed to have commited misconduct because she was doing her own research on the case, outside of what was presented in court.

The last juror asked to be let go after the group ousted him as foreperson. That is the one that I find the most interesting because he was the lawyer on the panel.

Mad4stevie · #43 11-12-2004, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

1. After seeing the tapes of Winona stealing merchandise, he continued to maintain that she had receipts and that he had seen them. He also claimed to have the prescriptions in his possession. He lost the case.

Yeah - that is the one that got me. I mean . . . REALLY. How do you go to trial with that kind of case?

strandinthewind · #44 11-12-2004, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

Juror Justin Falconer was dismissed about a month into the case because he had an "encounter" with Laci Peterson's brother in the courthouse.

The second juror was supposed to have commited misconduct because she was doing her own research on the case, outside of what was presented in court.

The last juror asked to be let go after the group ousted him as foreperson. That is the one that I find the most interesting because he was the lawyer on the panel.

Interestingly, he could have been making them adhere to the judge's instructions

I know people who like lawyers on their panels - so go figure

Mad4stevie · #45 11-12-2004, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Interestingly, he could have been making them adhere to the judge's instructions

I know people who like lawyers on their panels - so go figure

Wow - in my area, there is no way they would allow a lawyer onto the panel. Alas, I probably will never get to serve on a jury (which I think would be interesting, just once . . .)