|
Author
|
Comment
|
George512
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 10:54 am)
Reply
|
No, he said he was looking in the guide
No, he said he was looking in the guide for a football game, NOT the same as watching a football game. It's on a video so you will see it at trial.
|
lawyers4justice
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 10:58 am)
Reply
|
Absolutely right George !
Mrs. Mitchell is very definite. Mitchell says she remembers seeing Peterson, who was eight months pregnant at the time, between 10 a.m. and 10:15 a.m. on Dec. 24.
The dog returned with it's leash, without Laci, at around 10:30 am.
The other dogs of the other 2 pregnant ladies (chuckle, chuckle) did not return home alone.
Duh !
The football game is a stupid diversion. The undeniable fact that Laci was kidnapped and murdered is not subject to the cover up of sleazy fraud artists.
|
Palaw001
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:05 am)
Reply
|
See, you have it exactly backwards.
Well in this country Scott Petersen doesn't have to present a single iota of evidence that he didn't kill his wife or the baby she was carrying.
The state of california has to present evidence in a court of law that convinces a fair and impartial jury of his peers beyond a reasonable doubt that he did kill them.
See, you have it exactly backwards.
The real question is where is the evidence that scott did kill his wife and child to be?
????
And just as interesting: Where is the evidence that YOU didn't kill them?
A 'promise' made by Mark Gerragos that he will 'find the real killer' isn't binding or almost certainly admissible at trial--this out of court statement cannot be held to shift the burden from the government to the defense. It was IMHO grandstanding but obviously Mark had his reasons--I imagine to shift the public debate from the presumption of guilt that has accrued as a result of the media lynching to the possibility that Scott is actually innocent. But the promise means nothing to what happens in court. The government still bears the burden of proof, this has not become an affirmative defense.
If you insist on coming on this board every tuesday that is your right. But the question is still basically a silly one. Even sillier is the notion that the DA is going to 'gladly' drop charges.
They'll drop charges and admit they're wrong when pigs fly.
It isn't up to mark whether scott sits in jail or not. The DA is the one who has the power to charge him and to seek no bail, not mark.
If the DA concluded that they were wrong, they would have an ethical obligation to drop the charges. But somehow in real life even when there IS proof of innocence, the DA rarely does so--they usually disagree with the 'proof.' And that makes it a question for the jury.....
So when did you stop beating your wife redlandzboy? Oh yeah? PROVE IT!
|
lawyers4justice
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:08 am)
Reply
|
This is very simple really
Mrs. Mitchell knows when Christmas eve is and that is when Laci's dog returned home alone.
Her husband, Mr. Mitchell could have been watching a football game on the moon on Christmas Eve and he may be naive enough to be manipulated by a sleazy lawyer like Dan Abrams (ever Garagos was manipulated by Nancy Grace) and it would not make one bit of a difference.
CASE CLOSED
Pay me and go home, this is getting irritating !
|
Jersey Girl
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:14 am)
Reply
|
Abrams said MSNBC researhed it too
I don't think he or his wife are lying or out for their 15 minutes. I think they seem like a very nice old couple who are just mistaken what day they saw her.
|
lawyers4justice
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:16 am)
Reply
|
How nice !
Jersey Girl, your effort to create the impression that Mrs. Mitchell does not know when Christmas eve is, is nauseating.
I understand your frustration, Scott Peterson is 110% innocent, and you need to revise some facts, to claim that it isn't so.
Oh they are such a nice couple but it would be so much more convenient if they dropped dead because the facts are getting in the way of the INQUISITION.
|
Jersey Girl
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:26 am)
Reply
|
Why would you wish that the Mitchells drop dead?
You're sick and disgusting l4j!
|
lawyers4justice
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:27 am)
Reply
|
I suggested that is your wish
Delay the trial because their evidence is getting in the way of your effort to discredit them.
If they drop dead, they will fulfill your fantasy.
|
Jersey Girl
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:30 am)
Reply
|
Re: I suggested that is your wish
Those disgusting words came from YOU! You should be ashamed of yourself. Why you would wish death on anyone is sick!
|
lawyers4justice
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:33 am)
Reply
|
Look in the mirror.
When you cover up for a murderer, you grant them the opportunity to terrorize the Mitchells.
|
Jersey Girl
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:36 am)
Reply
|
Re: Look in the mirror.
Terrorize the Mitchells? That's the least of their worries,
YOU want them dead! tsk tsk
For shame!
|
lawyers4justice
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:39 am)
Reply
|
I know you love Nancy Grace
You evidently belong to a cult that enoys persecuting innocent people. Nancy Grace still thinks that Richard Ricci murdered Elizabeth Smart. That's what you call sick and disgusting.
Richard Ricci would still be alive today if it was not for people who are sick and disgusting.
|
Jersey Girl
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:41 am)
Reply
|
Re: I know you love Nancy Grace
I can't stand Nancy Grace and don't try and shift the blame for what YOU said!
|
lawyers4justice
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:51 am)
Reply
|
Jersey Girl, you have WAY too much time to waste.
If you think that you can manipulate me, you have watched too much television.
Give it a rest, but it's so much fun watching you try to support and discredit the Mitchells at the same time.
You are what is known as a "SLEAZE BAR".
Too transparent, another Pepperdine, law school graduate?
|
Jersey Girl
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:52 am)
Reply
|
I'm not the one who wishes them dead.
YOU ARE and if that's not a sleaze bar, I don't know what is. The MIchells aren't the guilty ones here, You are for your disgusting comments.
|
curiousGeorge2
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 11:56 am)
Reply
|
Jersey, what on earth are you talking about?
You are the one who is begging for the Mitchells to drop dead. Mcallister said that any witness who challenges the theory of the prosecution is being terrorized and you are clearly in bed with the fools who are trying to frame Scott Peterson. DUH !
|
lorilee228
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:01 pm)
Reply
|
ricci died in jail.........
ricci died in jail, innocent of the charge that he kidnapped a child.
|
BlueHouse
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:03 pm)
Reply
|
He wasn't CHARGED with kidnapping.
He wasn't CHARGED with kidnapping.
|
lorilee228
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:06 pm)
Reply
|
very funny
oic, then if he was never even charged with kidnapping how is it that there were whole message boards here on the court tv forum about his guilt?
|
curiousGeorge2
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:07 pm)
Reply
|
That is absolutely correct lorilee.
You know, you and justice4lawyers have essentially exposed the problem of our entire justice system. Our justice system is a jostling match between lawyers and 'Sleaze Bars'.
Scott Peterson is defended by lawyers and attacked by 'Sleaze Bars'.
|
girlgoyle
Unregistered User
(5/7/03 12:10 pm)
Reply
|
ricci died in jail, innocent of the charge that he kidnapped
He was never charged with kidnapping... he was arrested for other crimes and died in jail.
In your logic my friends father died in Dec, innocent of the charge that he kidnapped a child. ('cause he was never charged with it either)
__________________
My mom hired Mark Geragos to defend me and all I got was this lousy t-shirt
|
