I mean, last year you were telling us that Laci Peterson was killedby satanists? Now you are floating an absolutely ridiculous story that little Conor was born alive, and so dear Scott CAN’T have been the killer!
I didn’t know that being a defense attorney entitled you to be a fiction writer as well!
I wonder what the NEXT revelation from the defense teamwill be…I can see it now…Laci was abducted and killed by ALIENS! :smack:
Well, he seems to be making the argument that the evidence will show that the baby was carried to term, and born alive after the date the prosecution is claiming Mrs. Peterson and the baby/fetus were killed. While I don’t know if that’s true, I don’t know that it’s “absolutely ridiculous”.
What alternative defense would you make, were you Mr. Geragos?
It seems to me as if ralph would tell the jury, were he Mr. Geragos, that his client was obviously guilty as convicted in the court of public opinion and that there was no need for a defense. Christ I wish this thing would go away. He’s probably guilty, but even if he weren’t the guy couldn’t get a fair or impartial jury to save his ass at this point.
Sam
I’d kill myself.
When kill self,
take Cochran.
Everyone dies. Not everyone lives.
I have a dream, that one day, all the people in all of the world will stop paying attention to these damned trials, ratings for such affairs will plummet, and the world will move on.
A man can dream, can’t he?
I find myself agreeing with you, oddly enough.
Sam
I agree with Brutus as well.
<hangs head>
Why can’t Scott have killed her if the baby was born alive? Was it a Super-Baby that could have fought him off?
I believe the basic argument will be that Laci was alive for some time after her disappearance. Thus since Scott was under intense police surveillance almost immediately, he could not have done it and some party or parties unknown committed the kidnapping and murder(s).
This is the same guy who claimed that Winona Ryder had receipts for all the stuff she shoplifted.
He will do anything at all to sway the jury. Remember, he doesn’t care about truth or justice (and doesn’t have to), all he cares about is putting on the best defense for his client.
Of course, if that makes him a sleazeball, then we get to call him on it.
Sleazeball.
Wait until you hear the explaination for the “satanists.” I’m from Oakland, so I have some local info on the case. The bodies were found washed up near a small peninsula named the Albany Bulb. It’s made of really unstable landfill so nothing has ever been built on it. Local artists have used the area to make an impromptu art garden. Here are some pictures of examples.
So apparently, the brilliant lawyer is walking around the area, no doubt looking for clues that will lead to the real killer, when he finds some of the art. He spies a depiction of the devil, perhaps in the painting shown on the webpage above (far right column, 7 rows down).
“Aha!” he shouts! "I’ve cracked the case! Satanists did this art and they must be responsible for the murders!
I wish I were making this up. You wouldn’t believe this if you heard it in a lawyer joke.
I’d much rather have Geragos go through the whole “innocent until proven guilty” routine than to have folks like ralph124c make knee-jerk judicial decisions for us.
Can’t we at least wait to see the evidence before we mock it as implausibly loopy?
This may be a knee-jerk reaction, but I’ve thought Scott Petersen was guilty from the moment I heard that he went fishing all day on Christmas Eve. Every wife I know who is planning to have company over Christmas has better things for her husband to do on Christmas Eve than waste that last day fishing. Fishing was just his excuse for being able to dump the body. If he were innocent, he would have been out doing his Christmas shopping or finishing hanging the lights. That’s what innocent men do on Christmas Eve.
I haven’t followed the case for awhile and I am doing my best to avoid it, but why couldn’t the baby been born after Laci was killed and tossed into the water. I am guessing the baby lived for a little while before the body expelled him through contractions or, I dunno, the body gasses expanding and relaxing the body enough for a four/five weeks preemie to be born? Before drowning.
How long can a fetus within, say four to six weeks before natural delivery, live after the mother has died? Couple of hours? Days? I’m guessing half a day to one day at the longest. How much oxygen does a fetus taken in via umbilical cord to sustain it through a day?
And this is different from the prosecution how?
In fairness to Mr. Geragos, if his client, no matter how transparently guilty, refuses to cop a plea, he’s pretty much screwed. He’s gotta come up with something, and the more obviously guilty the client, the harder it’s going to be to come up with something that sounds even remotely plausible. Considering the shit he’s come up with so far in this case, it seems Mr. Peterson couldn’t appear more guilty if the cops had found him holding his wife’s severed head.
Which is, of course, not to say that he is guilty. Innocent until proven guilty good, trial by media bad, and all that.
Although, I have to admit, the “killed by Satanists” defence really chapped my kiester. I’ve know a few Satanists in my time, and they’ve been lovely people. Strange, but lovely.
Yes, that would be the definition of “knee-jerk” then.
Good job!
The prosecution has the burden of proof. That is how it is different.
IANAMD, but I’d be very suprised if it was more than a few minutes. The fetus pulls in oxygen through the umbilical cord, which pulls it from the mother’s bloodstream. No oxygen in mom=the baby’s toast.
The idea behind the defense, however, is that the estimated age of Conor from the day or two before Laci’s dissapearance and at the time of his death is around 3-4 weeks different. If this is true, then Conor–and therefore Laci–were alive for up to four more weeks after their dissapearance. Scott couldn’t have done it in this case–by that time he was being watched much too closely to do the murder and dump the body(s) without being caught. This seems pretty reasonable to me–the deciding factor would be what the margin of error is on fetal age estimations.
Add to that that they’ve got zero blood evidence in the house or on the boat, no witnesses to any attack/dumping, witnesses who claim to have seen Laci walking the dog that morning, no murder weapon, and no cause of death–and I think the chances of Scott getting off are pretty good. Personally, my gut says he’s probably guilty. But a good defense could definitely convince me otherwise, and certainly instill reasonable doubt.