Surely You Jest, Mr. Geragos!

The BBQ Pit
21

I believe he was referring to the prosecution’s pre-determination of guilt and dogged determination to nail this guy AT ALL COSTS. And in this case, it might not be so bad, but all to often the prosecution takes certain liberties, makes terrible leaps of faith and pursues certain people because they’re sure of their guilt. I see people in my office that have been through these ordeals where the city/county/state/federal prosecutors ignored all evidence to the contrary of their position.

Having said that, I have to ask, “And this is different from the prosecution how?”

Sam

22

Also, at this point, their star witnesses put on the stand yesterday couldn’t remember times, places, what she was wearing, and that the police made mistakes the entire time in her manner of dress even after seeing video of her from that day. There seems to have been many miss-steps in the investigation and the once-ironclad guilt of Scott Peterson isn’t looking so ironclad anymore.

But this is only the first day and I’m sure there will be more shocks and surprises to come.

Sam

23

So what? You implied that Geragos was dishonest by virtue of putting on the best defense for his client. But if the prosecution put on the best case for the state, they are somehow more honorable? The prosecution takes no oath to tell the truth; they can present whatever outlandish theories about the guilt of the defendant they wish.

No difference.

24

Didn’t a news source say that the cops found that Scott had cleaned with bleach or something recently? Or am I thinking of another horrific case?
The Killed by Satanists stuff chaps me too.

25

IIRC, one police officer said he’d smelled bleach.

all the pre trial publicity from the prosecution seemed to have amounted to:
they found a single hair that was similar to (ie no DNA typing available) Lacey’s in his boat or toolbox by his boat (I’ve joked ever since then to Snookie he’d better hope like hell I never disappear since my hair is absolutely everywhere - but I digress). but no blood at the house, in his vehicles, in his boat etc. (there was a local case where two guys murdered a woman at a house, cut her apart at the scene, burned her remains and scattered the ashes, and forensic guys still found a blood stain that matched the victim months and months later).

he was having an affair and lied about it at first to the cops. (stupid, but not the same as murder).

they think his claim of being fishing the day before Christmas is, well “fishy” (But since my ex used to go out hunting even on Thanksgiving day, before the family gigs, I don’t see this as odd for some one who was into it).

he bought the boat shortly before she disappeared.

He acted ‘oddly’ afterward (though I’m not sure how one’s supposed to act when one’s pregnant wife is missing), including going back to the marina and staring at the water (guilty explanation : “going back to the scene of the crime” innocent explanations: “police are scouring the marina for her body - need to be there” “Ohgod, if only I hadn’t gone fishing that day” “I need to be alone w/my thoughts” etc etc etc)

Did I mention he was having an affair?

26

I hate to say this, but the above is a good defense. Geragos may be a lot of things, but you have to include “crafty lawyer with lots of big wins under his belt” along with the insulting names and moral judgements.

Of the “big celebrity trials” going on right now, it is my guess that Scott Peterson will walk, Michael Jackson will be put away, Phil Spector will walk, Kobe Bryant will walk, and Robert Blake will die of old age before his trial starts.

27

The simple fact is that the state has to prove that Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife and child.

If the baby was carried to term and deliverd that is their problem.
Of course I wish this trial would be held in a court room and not on the news or in a movie of the week.

28

Ahem. TWO fucking movies of the week. BEFORE he went on trial! How is that for jumping to conclusions? I’ve been sickened by Califronia’s reaction to this whole ordeal for a year and a half now. I’m sure I’ll be plum sickened by the end of the trial.

In fact, it would serve the state right if the fucker walks the way they’ve (mis)managed this case.

Sam

29

What I was trying to say:I accept that Mr. Geragos has the duty to defend his client…this is an adverserial system, and he is being well paid for his efforts. What I DON’T understand…he (Geragos) can say that his client is not guilty. He can attack the evidence. But I don’t understand how he is allowed to insult the jurors intelligence with wild theories of his own, like the “Laci was killed by Satanists” bullshit. He has no proof, and no evidence…why should he be allowed to shoot his mouth off?
By the way, is Geragos doing this “pro bono”? Peterson’s parents can’t be all that wealthy…I assume Geragos bills at >$500.00/hour.

30

I read in People Magazine (which for all its fluff isn’t known for fabricating stuff) reported in this week that when they searched Peterson’s storage unit, (investigators) found wedding photos of him and Laci in a trash can." Shortly after her disapperance, he puts her car up for sale. Then they discover (surprise!) another woman, whom he continues to call even after his wife’s disappearance. But, don’t worry, his wife knew about the other woman and was okay with it. Then his wife and son’s bodies happens to surface in an area where he was fishing on the day she disappeared.

Wow. Either Peterson is one of the stupidest, most self-absorbed criminals to ever walk the planet or fate has tragically, cosmically aligned itself against this dude.

[Pooh] Think, think, think [/Pooh]

Call me a knee jerker, but I’m going with the former.

31

Because the prosecution is allowed to do the same thing. All of their evidence is circumstantial, yet they have described in detail how Peterson committed the crime. Are they allowed to shoot their mouths off?

32

I never implied that Geragos was dishonest by virtue of putting on the best defense. I implied that he was dishonest because he lied. He said he could produce receipts for all the items Wynona Ryder shoplifted. He couldn’t. He is dishonest. I specifically noted that he had no compulsion to tell the truth:

My point was simply that 1) He lies, and 2) If he uses sleazy tactics, then we have every right to call him sleazy.

You read a lot into my statement that clearly wasn’t there.

33

So, you’ve been sitting in on the defense strategy meetings and are privy to their thoughts and their evidence? Otherwise, why should you be allowed to shoot your mouth off? Until the evidence is introduced at trial, you have no more clue than I do. You’re just popping off with no basis.

The payment arrangement between Petersen and Geragos is entirely their business and no one else’s. Certainly none of yours. But again, you’re just popping off. “can’t be” “assume” You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. Nothing new there.

34

That’s enough for me, he killed his wife, right? :rolleyes:

Evidence of murder if I ever saw it. :rolleyes:

He is so busted, he must have killed his wife! :rolleyes:

Wow, the evidence is really piling up! Surely this means he killed his wife! :rolleyes:

An airtight case if I ever saw one, he mist have killed her! :rolleyes:

None of this “evidence” proves he killed his wife. If this is the best the prosecution has, Peterson will walk.

35

You’re EXACTLY the type of person the prosecution and the media have been pandering to in this case. People who would draw knee-jerk conclusions to it and have their minds made up at least a year before the trial. In all honesty, this case and cases like this should be kept on gag as soon as they happen. Of course the media outlets dying for a blood story would never go for that, but that’s another topic completely.

Sam

36

That and, you know, free press being necessary for democracy. Transparency good, secret trials bad and all that.

37

“he put her car up for sale!!!”

yes, he did. In December, they were (at least) a two vehicle family, he had a truck, she had a car. He needed the truck for work. They lived in a house, had house payments etc. The cops confiscated his truck and his boat and weren’t going to release them. The explanation (which seems fucking reasonable to me) was that he couldn’t afford to keep renting a vehicle for work, was cash strapped, needed a truck.

For every item on that list, Lisa there is also a fairly simple ‘innocent person’ explanation.

christ I remember at first the cops didn’t even believe that he’d been at the marina, even though he had the receipt, and there was much advertisment of “anyone, anyone who remembers him being there, please come forward”. Of course, after the bodies washed up, the prosecution has no problem believing he was there.

I really hope that they have more evidence than has been dolled out to the press. A single hair, his affair w/Amber Frey, his going fishing that day, and his actions afterwards don’t spell out “he murdered them” to me.

even this shit I"m hearing from the trial about 'she wore black pants in the morning of the day before, and beige ones later that day, he claims she wore black pants the morning she’s reported missing, yet was found w/remnants of beige ones on" prove nothing to me except she had a tendancy to change clothes even during the same day.

as matter of fact, to me that makes it less likely that he killed her. If he knew he’d dumped the body wearing beige pants why on earth would he claim she was wearing black ones when she left ('cause if she’d been kidnapped after she was last seen by him, wearing black pants, it’d be unreasonable to believe that kidnappers would give her a different pair of pants to wear).

38

Regarding Geragos and the Winona Ryder shoplifting case; you have asserted that Mr. geragos stated that Winona had receipts, but could not produce them, if a lawyer lies concerning evidence, hasn’t he committed a “fraud upon the court”?
Was Geragos ever disciplined for this falsehood?
:eek:

39

depends:

  1. did he say exactly that? OR did he say “my client assures me she has receipts for these items”.

  2. where did he make the claim? For example - if he said it to a reporter :shrug: I’m not certain the legalities of claiming something in say, an opening statement, that turns out to be false (though at some level in every trial that would actualy sorta happen- prosecution would claim ‘evidence will show you that he’s guilty’, defense will claim ‘evidence will demonstrate he’s innocent’ and only one will be win.)

40

Wring, if my spouse and child turned up missing, I wouldn’t be at work. Would you?