Police once theorized Laci Peterson was poisoned

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

Yup. Her hair just happened to be on his pliars in the toolbox that went with him to the marina, too. We already know that she would have fit in that toolbox no matter which way the defense spins it.

Geragos is a really bad lawyer, if you ask me. He blusters away about absolutely nothing (he has ever since he took on Winona Ryder) and when none of it comes to fruition, it all comes back to bite him in the ass. A good lawyer has to at least back up a little bit of what they say, but this guy spouts off tall tales that not only don't make sense, but sound like they came out of a Stephen King novel. Cults in black vans abducting Laci and then killing her and her baby as a ritual sacrifice? The guy is a joke, I wouldn't let him handle his own case on Judge Judy. By all accounts, the jury is sick and tired of his antics and are always roling their eyes whenever he stands up. Alienating the jury isn't going to score you any points, especially in a murder trial.

The jury needs to go into the jury room and think about two things: did the state prove that Scott did it? Did the defense prove that someone esle could have done it? Taking into account that all this is is circumstantial, my answers would most definitely be yes and no. Geragos has not done anything to prove that someone else did it. He has not even given a credible theory about how she died and who killed her. I can tell you right now that when the jury sits down tot hink about this, they're going to look at all of his blustering antics and then look at all of the things that the prosecution has shown. The $15,000, the disguise, the camping gear, the fake ID, being 20 miles from the border, Laci's body washing onto the shore where Scott was fishing, her hair in his pliars, how she could have easily fitted into his toolbox, his affair with Amber, his references in the past tense, how he blew off John Walsh and America's Most Wanted to play golf, his lying to the authorities, his demeanor, ALL of this will kill him. Mark my words.

duly marked.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

. . . The jury needs to go into the jury room and think about two things: did the state prove that Scott did it? Did the defense prove that someone esle could have done it? . . .

No - the first part is correct, but that is where it ends. The defense needs to prove nothing. They can sit there and not say a word. AND - if the jury convicts when the prosecution has not proven the case, the judge will remedy that and chastise the jury for disobeying the insctructions the judge laid out very carefully prior to sending the case to the jury.

I realize this is an academic point that may appear to make no difference here. But, I have seen cases fold on less.

It will be ineresting to see what will happen. Again, I think they will convict him not based on any direct evidence (blood, etc.) because there is none IMO. I think they will convict because he cheated on his pregnant wife and apparently had cheated other times in the past. That and the apparent running away to Mexico. But, we shall see!!!!

Note: the single strand of hair on the pliers is essentially meaningless as it could have come from his clothing, which could have had her hair on it, she could have used the pliers before, his toolbox or the pliers could have been in the house and her hair landed there as she walked by, etc. AND - that no blood was found with the hair further negated any culpability based on the hair.

Here is a pretty cool site (ONE OF MANY ) with some interesting takes http://www.crimenews2000.com/lacipet...rs/others5.htm

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by amber

uh, don't you think his morning fishing trip, near where the body washed up, the day after she disappeared, is a little suspicious?
AMber

Yes and no. Her body washed up there in April after massive publicity about side scan sonar efforts there.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No - the first part is correct, but that is where it ends. The defense needs to prove nothing. They can sit there and not say a word. AND - if the jury convicts when the prosecution has not proven the case, the judge will remedy that and chastise the jury for disobeying the insctructions the judge laid out very carefully prior to sending the case to the jury.

I realize this is an academic point that may appear to make no difference here. But, I have seen cases fold on less.

It will be ineresting to see what will happen. Again, I think they will convict him not based on any direct evidence (blood, etc.) because there is none IMO. I think they will convict because he cheated on his pregnant wife and apparently had cheated other times in the past. That and the apparent running away to Mexico. But, we shall see!!!!

And what I'm saying is that by doing nothing but bluster and whine, Geragos is going to shoot himself in the foot (he already has, IMO). They're going to go in the jury room and convict because of the sheer fact that no other credible suspect or scenario has been presented. They will look at what the prosecution has given them and have a verdict in two days. Like it or not, that's what will happen.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

And what I'm saying is that by doing nothing but bluster and whine, Geragos is going to shoot himself in the foot (he already has, IMO). They're going to go in the jury room and convict because of the sheer fact that no other credible suspect or scenario has been presented. They will look at what the prosecution has given them and have a verdict in two days. Like it or not, that's what will happen.

It very well may. Only time will tell. IMO - the prosecution is LUCKY to get this to a jury based on this flismy circumstantial evidence.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

Peterson will be convicted because of the fact that there is no one else to point the finger at.

He will be acquitted. This California jury cannot convict with a charge of capitol murder, IMO. Maybe in Texas. The prosecutors should have gone for a manslaughter conviction, IMO.

[amber]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Yes and no. Her body washed up there in April after massive publicity about side scan sonar efforts there.

ok, good point, but still, fishing trip day she disappeared? At Xmas?
AMber

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

Did the defense prove that someone esle could have done it?

They don't need to. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. Remember "innocent until proven guilty"?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

AND - that no blood was found with the hair further negated any culpability based on the hair.

I don't think the strand of hair having no blood has any significance, especially if she was poisoned. I think having the root attached to the hair is more pretty damning itself. BUT - the prosecution is not attempting to explain how she died.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

He will be acquitted. This California jury cannot convict with a charge of capitol murder, IMO. Maybe in Texas. The prosecutors should have gone for a manslaughter conviction, IMO.

He's going to buy the farm, my dear. He doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

They don't need to. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. Remember "innocent until proven guilty"?

And, as I told Jason twice, it doesn't matter if they need to or not, they are going to consider it when they are deliberating. It's a stretch to say that they won't, plain and simple. The one deciding factor in this case is a credible alternate theory. Unfortunately, the defense has not given one and it will only hurt them. Couple this with all of what the prosecution has presented? He's a goner.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I don't think the strand of hair having no blood has any significance, especially if she was poisoned. I think having the root attached to the hair is more pretty damning itself. BUT - the prosecution is not attempting to explain how she died.

Well, they kind of have to if they want to make their case. They have to prove each element of the crime. They have to prove he killed her, which means they have to show he did it - or link him inextricably to it, which they have not done IMO. So, we shall see if their mostly circumstantial case will stick. Again, I think the jury may want to convict solely because he cheated on his pregnant wife, people really look down on that AND Scott Peterson appears and comes off as a nice looking spoiled brat whose parents essentially provided him with a great lifestyle he could not otherwise afford ($30,000 down payment for the house, $30,000 for the country club membership, etc.) - people of means do not play well with juries as a very general rule.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, they kind of have to if they want to make their case. They have to prove each element of the crime. They have to prove he killed her, which means they have to show he did it - or link him inextricably to it, which they have not done IMO. So, we shall see if their mostly circumstantial case will stick. Again, I think the jury may want to convict solely because he cheated on his pregnant wife, people really look down on that AND Scott Peterson appears and comes off as a nice looking spoiled brat whose parents essentially provided him with a great lifestyle he could not otherwise afford ($30,000 down payment for the house, $30,000 for the country club membership, etc.) - people of means do not play well with juries as a very general rule.

Regardless, they aren't.

Personally, for a circumstantial case, I think the prosecution is working wonders. This thing could have easily fallen apart day one, but miraculously, it hasn't and it looks better and better for them each day.

While I think he's guilty as sin, I don't know if I would convict if I was on the jury. I want a little more.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by amber

ok, good point, but still, fishing trip day she disappeared? At Xmas?
AMber

Which is negated by the massive publicity-anyone could've have dumped her there.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Which is negated by the massive publicity-anyone could've have dumped her there.

Plus, people go to football games, etc. in that time period as well as other holidays. So, it is not like he went to China Again, this is circumstantial.