Theories unfold as hearing nears in Peterson case

The Contra Costa Times ^ | Oct 12, 2003

[STOCKHRSE]

I proved what you said impossile was a easy task. ya know, the difference tween mouth and motion....;-)

Anyone who philosophically supports a judicial system that gets overturned 60% of the time by constitutionally parametered Federal Appellant courts,is by definition *LIBERAL*. That is a given.
I also told you I didn't care, that is until you start double speak like the routes last night. Then I'd like ta shake ya teeth loose....;-)

[STOCKHRSE]

I proved what you said impossile was a easy task. ya know, the difference tween mouth and motion....;-)

Anyone who philosophically supports a judicial system that gets overturned 60% of the time by constitutionally parametered Federal Appellant courts,is by definition *LIBERAL*. That is a given.
I also told you I didn't care, that is until you start double speak like the routes last night. Then I'd like ta shake ya teeth loose....;-)

[RGSpincich]

I proved what you said impossile was a easy task.

I hate to set you straight again but this is what I really said.

Ray, to be walking east on La Sombra to Buena Vista she would have had to have come down (south) El Rio from the direction of the park and La Loma. El Rio doesn't connect to Yosemite.

I didn't say anything was impossible. La Sombra is one block long between El Rio and Buena Vista. This is the only stretch of La Sombra she could have been on heading east to Buena Vista. All the other routes you came up with do not cover that route. And if any routes did go by Yosemite first,she would have to loop around and backtrack.

If you still maintain I said something was impossible, post it.

ya know, the difference tween mouth and motion....;-)

I know it quite well. It is something you should consider before going into your macho act.

[STOCKHRSE]

His car and boat looked pretty spic and span to me. Easy answer. He washed the boat.

She did not walk that morning. Scott said she had on black pants, she was found with light colored pants on. She either had on her pants from the night before (light colored) or PJs. Dogwalking eyewitness testimony is unreliable, IMO

Well Vell! I'm glad it was easy cause it was irrevelant to the question.

ALL PANTS ARE LIGHT COLORED AFTER MoNTHS of salt water exposure. But lets say the aren't black. killers change clothes on victims all the time to confuse. That is why it is only taken seriously when absolutely necessary. A black man turns lilly white after 3 weeks in the water.

You are entitled to your opinion, but Federal courts don't discriminate as to eyes especially when backed by strong scent evidence.

I wonder if you will feel differently about that evidence if the DA needs it to get an indictment.

The DA must prove Laci's body in that boat,without allowance for wash job, or all evidence from warrants is likely out.

[Queen Jadis]

Remember, this is the guy who when interviewed by Diane Sawyer described his marriage as GLORIOUS!! That almost made me puke on the spot. I'm happily married but I can tell you neither myself nor my husband would call our marriage GLORIOUS. That's not even a normal description.

Nor was his reponse today in court about the delay being "appropriate" what is with his ODD word usage? All he needed to say was "yes that's ok". It's peculiar. He uses grandiose language inappropriately. It's as if he is acting a the part of a well educated man, that he wishes he were...when really his word usage and acting are redundant an odd. I bet a lot of people "bought" his act for a long time. Including his parents. I looked at him in court today and wondered if Laci ever felt sorry for the insecure person that was under the facade? To bad that he was not just an insecure person....

[Velveeta]

You are entitled to your opinion, but Federal courts don't discriminate as to eyes especially when backed by strong scent evidence.

If the eyes deceive themselves...you can bet the courts will discriminate. Mrs. Mitchell, how's her eyesight? Could she have seen Kristen?

Mr. Mitchell, he didn't see her.

Homer Maldonado seems to have seen her "everywhere"

Mike Chiavetta, has a GLASS EYE....how's his vision? Did he see Kristen or Laci?

Kristen talked to Scott, walked right by there.

[STOCKHRSE]

the court will examine and crossexamine whoever comes forward, that is by no means discrimmination.

You saig dog walking eyewitnesses were unreliable regardless. And that is acceptable;I know of no law against it and you said it was your opinion.

In a court of law that is not acceptable under equal application.

I don't understand the anger or maybe I do. I am just trying to preserve reliable evidence. God knows there is nothing conclusive yet and.to people who thought there was
Find it is frustrating

There is a bunch of people way too emotionally involved for whatever their reasons.They say they care for Laci But that doesn't fit b/c if tey did care for her they would want to catch all involved whereever it leads.

That is not the case!



Good bless all of you

[Velveeta]

You saig dog walking eyewitnesses were unreliable regardless

Eyewitness testimony *typically* is the least reliable. We all know that if 10 people see an accident, they'll be 10 different descriptions of what occurred. I would love for there to have been an eyewitness who saw Laci shoved into a van and for that person to have nabbed the license plate, but we haven't heard that materialize.

I don't understand the anger or maybe I do. I am just trying to preserve reliable evidence

The anger (actually frustration) stems from you labeling people Liberals or talking down to them if they have an opinion that differs from yours. Simple.

There is a bunch of people way too emotionally involved for whatever their reasons.They say they care for Laci But that doesn't fit b/c if tey did care for her they would want to catch all involved whereever it leads

Go back and read your posts, Ray. You sir, were the only one getting *too* emotional.

Now here's a clean bowl of Cornflakes for you with a side dish of fresh strawberries....I'd love to hear your theory about what you think happened.

[STOCKHRSE]

"Eyewitness testimony *typically* is the least reliable."

If that is your philosophy, You are a constitutional liberal. You must be from Illinois or California.

"If 10 people see an accident, they'll be 10 different descriptions of what occurred"

OK! No one saw the accident, just a dead 5yrold girl holding a dead cat.

Thanks! I'll take the first one...Luv

Since the inception of our country our citizens through their Government have relied on the witness of other citizens to determine events. Maybe we are not as smart as you are, but we have done OK for hundreds of years. You come from must be really great.

Change it if you can but respect and live by it until you can because in the end (THE APPELLANT COURT) it is how you will be judged.

And my dear that will be the case here

You have never seen me get emotional when events switch from one side to the other b/c I unlike you have not prejudged anyone.

I get emotional when I see the constitution trashed and it's processes ridiculed. Why not get emotional I have sworn to defend it to my DEATH and will gladly do so.

That prosecution should have started with written statements from eyewitnesses and when it gets to Federal court that is exactly where it will start. No matter who it helps or hurts, especially if the case comes from CA.

Of course, if the judges are honest and Brazelton lied about evidentiary involvement of the boat, for now Scott should be free or more real evidence made public. There is no flight w/o proper warrant; In America we are free to come and go unless your people get control.

Vel we have a system and until changed Conservatives "TRY to live by it. Liberals try to change it.

I am family man and more, a daddy to my kids. That crime makes me want to kill. But we do not do it that way, we have rules and if a prep gets around them he walks b/c a long time ago we realized it was better to free ten guilty men than put one innocent man in prison. Before you disagree spend 30days innocent time, then decide!

You can disagree with the premise and that's OK, but if you interfere with the rule process, you obstruct, and you will be dealt with. California 60% 0verturn. Illinois (IIRC46%) overturn.

The whispers have been delivered, clean it up or we will.
The rumored remedy is layered but starts with "dismissal with prejudice" They will dismiss the case and free the suspect protected by double jeopardy,

They specifically mentioned this witness business.

It's ok with me if you want to be liberal, but watch it, you are on a conservative forum. Not all liberals think they are liberals but remember, they don't always get to decide.

You only disagree with me if you disagree with constitutional mandate.

Gee! Got to go they’re waiting.

Rain check on strawberries, Okkkkkkkkk.

Ray.

[Velveeta]

"Eyewitness testimony *typically* is the least reliable." If that is your philosophy, You are a constitutional liberal.

Are you're still out there with Chief Moose looking for the "angry white man in the white box van"? My philosophy in life is quite simple: Veritas.

You have never seen me get emotional when events switch from one side to the other b/c I unlike you have not prejudged anyone.

I'm not a juror at SP's trial, I can discuss my observations, theories and even pre-judge Scott Peterson (he's guilty) on forum without hindering his constitutional rights. And if I'm wrong about my perceptions, you would see that I'd be the first to admit it. (And I still wouldn't have had a wit of influence over his rights.)

Of course, if the judges are honest and Brazelton lied about evidentiary involvement of the boat, for now Scott should be free or more real evidence made public. There is no flight w/o proper warrant; In America we are free to come and go unless your people get control.

Always so skeptical about those who choose careers defending the Constitution. Why is that? "My people?" Who are my people Ray? I didn't know I had "people".

a long time ago we realized it was better to free ten guilty men than put one innocent man in prison. Before you disagree spend 30days innocent time, then decide!

You've precisely slam-dunked my point for me Ray! Nicely done! I don't want ANY innocent men in prison. I'm sure you're aware that of the over 100 men on DEATH ROW who were exonerated by DNA evidence, almost ALL of them were convicted based on WRONGFUL EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Read up on Elizabeth Loftus' studies.

It's ok with me if you want to be liberal, but watch it, you are on a conservative forum. Not all liberals think they are liberals but remember, they don't always get to decide.

Anyone who disagrees with you is a liberal? Ray, da man....the rest of us to share your scraps of wisdom evenly among us...or else, huh? How very, Stalinesque.

[STOCKHRSE]

Are you're still out there with Chief Moose looking for th“e "angry white man in the white box van"? My philosophy in life is quite simple: Veritas”


HELL NO! I am with those “eyewitnesses” who saw the dark complexioned men the first or second day. And the ones who stopped them twice but Chief Moose refused to listen, because they were black Veritas. I posted as much somewhere that very day and got ma bones jumped.

It appears you are out there with da Moose

Everything gets abused and eyewitness testimony is no different.100 were abused but how many thousands were freed b/c of truthful eyewitness testimony. Veritas

Over zealous prosecutors have abused it. It is after all their responsibility to screen these people. And it is when Prosecutors abuse eyewitness testimony that an innocent man goes to jail.Veritas

You read Federal Witness Guidelines.
You read Chicago Tribune Survey on prosecutorial misconduct. Veritas

It has been found that prosecutors exclude eyewitnesses that go against their circumstantial theory and fabricate them to conform on others. Especially on Rape where there are no actual witnesses they fabricate them. Veritas.

“Always so skeptical about those who choose careers defending the Constitution. Why is that? "My people?" Who are my people Ray? I didn't know I had "people"”


Keep talking and they will group you with some people, not FR I fear. Vel, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Skeptical of prosecutors? Oh, no reason LUV. Yea, prosecutors are defenders of constitutional rights. NOT! Keep reading!


PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS


The Chicago Tribune (10-14 Jan, 1999) ran a scathing series of articles
exposing the role of prosecutors in contributing to the number of wrongful
convictions in the United States in general, but especially in Illinois.

http://www.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/wrong/tribpros.html


Da CONSTITUTION be Da Man. Veritas


Ray does not have a horse in this race, guilty or not guilty. So we can’t disagree there.

Ray is not the one overturning 60% of CA capital cases and IIRC 46% of Illinois Capital cases, with an asterisk on witness and confession handling.

Ray is not the one personally commenting on the importance of eyewitness testimony, so we can’t disagree there.

You don't disagree with me unless you disagree with Constitutional Mandate. Veritas


YOU DISAGREE WITH UNITED STATES JUDICIAL POLICY:

THE GOVERNMENT POSITION: The Constitution through the Supreme Court of The United States, through the Attorney General of The United States, Through The Federal Appellate Courts; Eyewitness Testimony judged truthful is second only in direct evidence importance to a properly received confession..

YOUR LIBERAL POSITION: Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Read up on Elizabeth Loftus' studies.


You seem brazen enough to want besmirch the messenger now how about the MESSAGE itself and the Government for which it stands? (You are GETTING WARM!)

Your next step is for you to call who Stalinesque? Veritas

NOW CRAWFISH AND SPIN SOMEWERE ELSE THAT IS YOUR CASE AND THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE ON EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY. they are the same or they are different. You decide. I could care less.

You and Liz have fun looking for a jurisdiction. Just another couple of Kooks to be pused aside. It is your life do with it what you will.

Ray

[Velveeta]

http://www.dredmundhiggins.com/

Eyewitness identification is one of the most potent and effective tools available to police and prosecutors. It is compelling, and time after time, it convinces juries of the guilt of a defendant. The problem is, eyewitness identifications are WRONG at least 50% of the time!

The table below reports errors found in each of the cases in the database. Some cases have more than one error.

Errors Number of Cases Percent

Erroneous Eyewitness Identification 214 59%

False Informant (jailhouse snitch) 102 28%

Official Misconduct 66 18%

False Confession 64 18%

Prosecutorial misconduct is indeed a problem, Ray. BUT not as predominant a problem as eyewitness identification.

But what the "L" do I know? I'm just a liberal trapped on a conservative forum.

Have a nice day.

[STOCKHRSE]

You are no liberal your post proves it. Sorry for my error Luv. Please excuse me?

May ah please have ma strawberries now? Pretty please?

[Velveeta]

Ah, darn it! You're just a smidge late for strawberries.

Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins and Sean Penn were over for dinner and strawberry shortcake was served up for dessert ala Martha Stewart's recipe.