Peterson's ex-girlfriend testifies today

The National Post ^ | 11/12/03 | Julie Smith

[Devil_Anse]

Sounds like Johnnie's talking out his ass, as usual! He's there to sell books.

What the MPD has of those tapes, they're apparently turning over. End of story, IMO!

[Sandylapper]

I never got to see the transcripts of that particular motion by Geragos, and the judge's response. I believe that granting of a "motion for dismissal" would probably not be done if the evidence prosecution presents is so overwhelming that it can't be ignored. You'd better believe that if Girolami can think of any reason for the case to go forward, it's going. How would ever ignore the fact that Laci and the baby's bodies washed up a mile or so from where Scott had been fishing? If the judge did use language such as Cochran's, I need to see the transcript. Alas, the full transcripts are hard to come by.

[MEG33]

You have mail.

[Devil_Anse]

I read that part of the transcript, at least the part from last week where Geragos and McAllister brought it up. I was trying to read carefully, since I was wondering what this FBI surveillance was about. I absolutely do not remember the judge saying anything like that. All the judge did was listen, and then he abruptly just said, okay, let's get to today's witness. And Brocchini began to testify.

If this case gets dismissed, the DA can bring it to the grand jury. (Not the federal one--a state grand jury.) But if it DOES get dismissed, it's NOT going to be b/c of some fantasy Geragos has about these FBI tapes. Not gonna happen.

[Devil_Anse]

Back atcha!

[Sandylapper]

Then Geragos' motion was not a formal motion--just a hypothetical. Right? Seems like a judge would respond to a motion.

[runningbear]

material things matter more to scaughty than humanoids..... ;o)

[Devil_Anse]

I have no doubt that Geragos really moved to have the case dismissed b/c of the FBI taping--that it was not hypothetical. But that doesn't mean the judge has to rule right away. Furthermore, the issue hadn't necessarily "ripened." I mean, okay, suppose the state HAD been remiss somehow. Suppose that under CA law, the state DID have an obligation to go over there, put a choke-hold on the FBI, and FORCE them to turn over those tapes.

Still, that doesn't mean that the state wouldn't be given some time to comply, some time to answer the complaint that the defense was making. Did you read where Distaso outlined all the attempts he'd made to GET these tapes? That counts for something.

The state is entitled to fairness, too. If one side complains of the other, the other is at least given a chance to remedy the situation--if that can be done.

These FBI tapes are not necessarily exculpatory evidence, and therefore they don't necessarily fall under the Brady v. Maryland case. If they are exculpatory, however, it's possible that in CA law the state has some further obligation regarding getting them.

But normally, the state is only required to give the defense those things which it HAS that the defendant is entitled to be given.

Every time Geragos makes a motion, doesn't automatically mean it's going to be granted, nor does it even mean that he necessarily expects it to be successful.

[melodie]

I've been thinking bout snott drowning Laci. No blood, no sign of a struggle, and no noise. Kind of makes sense.

[drjulie]

"But normally, the state is only required to give the defense those things which it HAS that the defendant is entitled to be given."

At this point would Geragos only be entitled to evidence that is used in the preliminary hearing? If the prosecution is holding some of the evidence for trial can they keep that from Geragos up and until 30 days before the trial begins?

[Cloe]

I just had the chance to look at your site - WOW!
Everything is there - Thank you. { you must be way up there in the wiz kid group!}

[Sandylapper]

Anse, I do understand that the judge didn't have to make a firm ruling on the motion, but thought that he in some way would have had to acknowledge a formal motion before the court. According to Cochran, it was and in this manner:

"And the judge has said if the FBI doesn't turn those tapes over, that there may be -- a motion for dismissal may be granted."

I don't know if Cochran was lying or not. The exact words of the judge and Geragos are in the transcripts which I haven't seen. Believe you have and don't think he acknowledged the motion.

[hergus]

Last night Greta showed the surveillance cameras on the poles from last week and now they are gone, pictures below on URL.

Also, according to KTVU's Ted Rowlands, Kim McGregor broke some glass to enter the Peterson house.
Photos, a videocamera, christmas presents, and several of Laci's sweaters were stolen in this break-in. While in the Peterson house McGregor draped herself in Laci's wedding dress and laid down on Laci's bed.

http://community-2.webtv.net/westri/laci2/page5.html

[hergus]

I was watching for pictures of sliding glass doors last night and grabbed this one.

I think I can see them in this URL:

http://community-2.webtv.net/westri/laci2/page6.html

What do you think?

[Sandylapper]

I think I can see sliding glass doors, but they appear to be the side of the house where the driveway is located (re the truck). Didn't know there was a fence in that specific area. I thought the fence, and the doors (either French or sliding) were on the other side of the house, in the "L". It's still confusing to me. Sorry I'm apparently so dense.

[Sandylapper]

This Kim McGregor is a piece of work, isn't she? Strange selection of items stolen, IMO, and why did she break glass if she had a key?

[RGSpincich]

I see glass. It could be from the sitting area or either of the two bedrooms on that side of the house depending upon the angle of the camera. With the fence and the corner of the living room blocking the full view, it's hard to say if the glass is part of a window or a door. I'm not much help, huh?

[Devil_Anse]

No, there is a continuing duty for them to turn things over, once the judge has ruled that it is discoverable. They can't hold stuff, if the judge has ruled that they must turn it over.

Geragos has filed a "Brady" motion, asking the judge to order the state to turn over any exculpatory evidence which the state has in its possession. I am sure this motion was granted. If the state then fails to turn over exculpatory evidence, this might cause the prosecution to fail.

Geragos has also asked for discovery of other things, besides just exculpatory evidence. If the state is ordered to turn over certain things, and doesn't, the state may not be allowed to use such evidence at trial. Theoretically, the reverse is also true for Geragos, though obviously if the state loses (if Scott is acquitted), the state can't appeal that.

[Devil_Anse]

It appears that the judge is doing everything to promote settlement of this issue regarding the FBI videotapes. He would obviously rather settle the issue than do anything drastic like dismiss the case on such trivial grounds. So I think he is giving the parties a chance to resolve this issue b/f he rules.

Judges take their time ruling on some things. In fact, they do this so often, there are even built-in rules in every code of procedure, rules to tell lawyers what to do in the event that they have made a motion but have received no ruling on it from the judge. An example of such a rule is a rule which says, "if the judge has not issued a ruling on it within 60 days of its filing, the motion is deemed denied." That's just an example, not something that has come up in this case.

[Devil_Anse]

That's a good question: why did Kim break glass when she had a key?