Posted on 12/07/2004 5:32:12 AM PST by runningbear
You have such a way with words. lol
Pinz
Lord, look at this from court today:
Regarding victim impact statements after the penalty verdict ...
Garagos wants Jackie Peterson to be able to give an impact statement because she is a blood relative of Conner just as the Rochas are. Judge Delucchi said, "No".
Geragos also said: Jacie Peterson is as much a victim as Sharon Rocha.
LOL - Just think about it. He was FAILING miserably at work (23% of expected production by November for the ENTIRE year), wasn't man enough to tell Laci that he didn't want to be married anymore; TOO GREEDY TO pay child support; So he KILLED what he thought was his entire problem. We'll just have this thing wrapped up in ONE month, ala Jan. 25th, Amber I will be available to be exclusive with YOU!! What a TOTAL Loser!!
WHAAAAAAAAT????? Are you kidding Howl? I guess not. I just read on WS that the testimony today was absolutely REDICULOUS!! Some guy who was a neighbour had a brother who was lost, so Scott says, "here have my golf bag, maybe that will make you feel better"!! HUH? I think If I was on that Jury I would literally fall out of my chair. Mrs. Medina testifies that Scott helped her fix her flat tire on 12/5/02!! That was the day he got home after his sleep over with Amber if I remember correctly.!! Also, last but not least, DAVE HARRIS has reserved the right to IMPEACH. That tells me that he is gonna take Jackie Peterson apart on the stand. Maybe cause her a meltdown like Dr. March. He's gonna impeach her from her stooooopid lies when she testified in the guilt phase. Tomorrow ought to be outstanding!!
Oh wow....Is Jackie testilying tomorrow?
Didn't realize she'd be on the stand so
soon.
Can someone tell me the circumstances of how "not-so-Scott free"'s Mom gave up two children? I can't believe I had not heard that one!
I am still sickened that Sharon Rocha does not get the last word in this. The victims's impact statement should be the last thing the jury hears.
Yes she is DeeJay!!
Jackie P. had two kids out of wedlock
and gave them away. They looked for
her. Jackie didn't go looking for them.
Which I find odd.
Here's a link to Peterson Tree.
http://www.findlaci2003.us/peterson-tree.html
Well, plainly, she got knocked up by two different men, had the babies, and then gave them up for adoption. She didn't go looking for them either, they came looking for her. Apparently Scott found this out THE DAY he was marrying Laci!! This is a family of TOTAL contradictions!!
Looks like we posted at the same time. LOL
See my post#68. Link to Peterson Tree.
Thanks for the info! Interesting, but not surprising.
I guess I understand giving your child up (although I would never have EVER done it myself) if she was in dire straits or something. But TWO? Sounds like she looked upon children as disposable.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
John was one she kept. He was named John Latham (Jackie's maiden name), John was brought into Jackie & Lee's marriage.
He's known as John Peterson, but there's no indication he was ever legally adopted by Lee.
This info is listed on the Peterson Tree link.
I have been lurking and with all of you on the disgust of spare Scooty dribble.
Been watching it via Court TV.
It is you guys who turned me on to Court TV. Love it.
Any word on Dev????? Prayers continue.
I sure do! I've got COPS on here!
IMHO it should have been first degree for both mother and son.What a bunch of enablers these people are testifying on his behalf. And his mother is the biggest enabler of all.
Judge impatient tapping his foot waiting for defense, now they all went into the back room, and someone yelled out Hey the jury can't hear you in there. (back room is not open court)
Waiting for all sides to return to court room.
Please keep posting the details. I don't have CTV.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.