southsider2k5 Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/08/peterson...l.ap/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshPR Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 :headshake Fry the Bastard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 His lawyers apparently did their job, which is not really to "prove innocence", but rather to place doubt in the jurors' minds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 His lawyers apparently did their job, which is not really to "prove innocence", but rather to place doubt in the jurors' minds. I really hate to say it.. but the prosecution didn't come close to proving their case. Geragos didn't have to do much to create doubt. The prosecution wants the jury to believe that he killed her in their home, loaded her in the back of his truck, took her to a warehouse where his boat was, put her in his boat, and took her to the marina 60 miles away, launched his 14foot fishing boat in the bay, and dumped her body. Meanwhile there is not one piece of forensic evidence to connect him to the crime. How do you kill someone and not leave something, anything..??? Don't get me wrong.. I think he did it.. but if I was on that jury I'd have a hard time convicting him with what was presented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I have to agree Steff. I wonder what the prosecution was thinking bringing such a weak case to court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I have to agree Steff. I wonder what the prosecution was thinking bringing such a weak case to court. IMO.. they should have waited longer to arrest him. He would have eventually hung himself. They should have played it cool.. said no suspects.. continued the investigation quietly. Kept a tail on him and nailed him when they got something solid. I hate to say it.. but he's likely going to get away with murder. I hope I am soooo wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Exactly. Heck, watch cold case files or new detectives and that is the first thing they say in regards to a case without a lot of physical evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I guess the judge just called the Defense into chambers and they are waiting on the DA. Looks like something is up. I did read that today's events are in questions.. I guess the jury asked to see Peterson's boat.. at which time 2 jurors got into the boat and were jumping in it. the judge had to bring them into court and re-read their instructions and remind them that the boat on land would be more stable than in the water.. (duh :rolly ). I guess Geragos is questioning those actions as the jury was not granted permission to perform "experiments" on or with the exhibits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Geragos wants a mistrial on this basis (that the jury performed their own experiments). He's pissed because I guess he had earlier wanted to take the jury out to the water and have an experiment of his own to show that a man his size could not dump a pregnant woman that size over the side of a boat without tipping it over. That would have been a veeeerrrrry interesting experiment, especially if it went awry. I'm beginning to think he didn't do it. Like Steff said, there's no forensic evidence. And he jst doesn't strike me as intelligent enough to pull off murder and not screw something up. Unless he's like Queen Prawn and watches a lot of New Detectives and such. Watch your back, Brian! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 I'm beginning to think he didn't do it. Like Steff said, there's no forensic evidence. And he jst doesn't strike me as intelligent enough to pull off murder and not screw something up. Unless he's like Queen Prawn and watches a lot of New Detectives and such. Watch your back, Brian! LOL! Actually we both watch it and joke that we are taking indepth notes while viewing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 LOL! Actually we both watch it and joke that we are taking indepth notes while viewing. My wife had a lot of forensic classes to get her degree (Micro Biology). She always teases that I should never piss her off. When we watch those shows she always says stuff like, "Idiot, didn't you know that's traceable?, etc." I make sure to give a bite of my food to the dog first if we're ever arguing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Geragos wants a mistrial on this basis (that the jury performed their own experiments). He's pissed because I guess he had earlier wanted to take the jury out to the water and have an experiment of his own to show that a man his size could not dump a pregnant woman that size over the side of a boat without tipping it over. That would have been a veeeerrrrry interesting experiment, especially if it went awry. I'm beginning to think he didn't do it. Like Steff said, there's no forensic evidence. And he jst doesn't strike me as intelligent enough to pull off murder and not screw something up. Unless he's like Queen Prawn and watches a lot of New Detectives and such. Watch your back, Brian! Actually they said no to a trip to the bay early on so they video taped a re-inactment of the act (dumping a body) but that was ruled inadmissable. Geragos said this morning if they can jump in the boat.. they should get to show the tape.. judge said no.. he requested a mistrial and was denied. I don't agree with a mistrial.. but eye.. I totally agree.. he is not that smart. But on the other side.. the other scenerios are so out there. There's no evidence of anyone killing her. Whoever did it covered their tracks very, VERY well.. or got extremely lucky. I feel so sad for her family, and his also (they did lose a daughter in law and grandson). I can't imagine losing a family member by murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 LOL! Actually we both watch it and joke that we are taking indepth notes while viewing. Jim finds those shows boring... I'm waaaay ahead of the game if he ever makes me really mad.. LMAO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Honestly I think he paid someone to do it. I don't think he killed her himself but he's responsible. However that prosecutor is an idiot for f***ing this case over. If I were the victims family i'd sue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 8, 2004 Author Share Posted November 8, 2004 Geragos wants a mistrial on this basis (that the jury performed their own experiments). He's pissed because I guess he had earlier wanted to take the jury out to the water and have an experiment of his own to show that a man his size could not dump a pregnant woman that size over the side of a boat without tipping it over. That would have been a veeeerrrrry interesting experiment, especially if it went awry. Was I the only one thinking "if it does not fit, you must aquit?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Or... "If he falls in the drink..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 This morning several jurors were seen hugging their bus driver as she dropped them off from the hotel at court leading many to believe they had anticipated not seeing her again.. This afternoon there is mass action in the court room as there are rumors of juror misconduct. Something about a juror doing some sort of research in the early stages of the trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 If there is jury issues, would that mean it would be dismissed with the possibility of reintroducing charges? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 If there is jury issues, would that mean it would be dismissed with the possibility of reintroducing charges? Not sure. Not sure if it's going to be a mistrial.. or if they will simply dismiss the offender and replace them with an alternate. I don't even think they (reporters) are sure on the offense. The court room is on the second floor and the judge has banned all cells, cameras, and laptops, so the info is coming out slowly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Yikes!! Reports are suggesting that one of the jurors has conducted research pertaining to the case on his or her own. Jurors are strictly prohibited from investigating a case further than what is presented to them in court. This could potentially mean a mistrial. Hung I definitely thought was possible.. I even thought maybe NG.. but a mistrial.. That would be soooo bad for the state of CA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 The Peterson's are in court and reports are that the Rocha's (Laci's family) presence has been requested. Does anyone know if they would be required to be there if the judge was just replacing a juror..? If not.. then this might mean an announcement of a mis-trial or a verdict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I wouldn't think they would need to be there for a replacement. but then again, one never knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1549 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 For anyone looking for a good book, I recommend "Blind Faith" written by Joe McGinniss in the 80's...it is an excellent non-fiction book about a man suspected of the murder of his wife. Though the physical evidence is lacking...there is overwhelming circumstansial evidence against the man. There are parallels between the case McGinniss writes of and the Peterson case. The book takes a look at the couple's three kids and how they felt and where their loyalty was...it is probably the best book I have ever read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I have that book at home. I know I read it, but can't remember alot about it - I need to take a quick glance at it when I get home to remember it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1549 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 I have that book at home. I know I read it, but can't remember alot about it - I need to take a quick glance at it when I get home to remember it. Rob Marshall, the husband...responded to "Blind Faith" withe a book called "Tunnel Vision" a few years ago. I haven't read it yet, but I hope to soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.