Replies

CO, the probative value is that she has no direct knowledge of the time, place,and participants of "Actus Reus" and that would materially help my client (if he were my client).

I do not think a judge is likely to refuse, especially if she is likely to testify against my client at a later date.

It is BS CO, but everything is at this point.

IMHO this judge will allow anyone to testify since no jury is present.Besides CO, Anse got so upset at the possibility, her angst convinced me more.

Really Co, it is not my intent to upset a good conviction, but at this point there is no good conviction and Anse has agreed to that off-line. Normally I would not relate that but she/he has gotten very aggressive. I mean, she/he has invited me on-line to kiss his/her ass simply b/c I offered advice.....;-0). She did apologize off-line(character shows).

I really can't understand why she thinks I would owe her that favor.....GEEZ! me hopes it's she.....;-0)

Ah mean, look at my tag line, it's just my opinion! Submitted rhetorically. "Ah guess she never herd ah rhetorically"

Remember when we all swore to be nice to each other....;-00)

Believe you are in the same frame of mind that I am, Ray, that this has now become a "game" between prosecution and defense, and you and I want to know what's factual/logical and what's emotional. The case on surface was highly emotional--how could anyone premeditate and murder a 7 1/2 month pregnant, beautiful, almost perfect wife? What kind of a monster is this? And, of course, every woman and most men want to see him strung up.

Once it gets in the court system, it's another story--it becomes a game--who's got what? Prosecution vs. defense--not who did this horrific, unspeakable thing to poor Laci, but did Scott do it? As things unfold, we'll see who did what, when, where and how and they will lead to the truth, or at least, we hope they will. Court records are written for history,--and facts will be documented. Sorry, emotions not allowed, unless you have a jury completely stacked with emotional people. JMO

The reason I said that Geragos MUST show the Judge that Amber can be a benefit to their case and that he (The Judge) likely will not allow her to testify for the defense is this: All of the Lawyers both Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys alike agreed that it was Very Unlikely that the Judge would grant Geragos's request. They didn't explain why but they all agreed so I suppose we will wait and see. Johnny Cochran of course needed to get a comment in that this Judge seems to be PRO-Prosecution. I think he's just a no nonsense Judge. At least he doesn't appear to be into Geragos's gamesmanship. There is also, as the Attorney's explained, a real danger to the Defense if they call Amber and attempt to get into the "previous bad acts" scenario. If The Defense opens that door, then the Prosecution may do the same with Peterson. And the only way that Peterson can defend himself is to take the stand. I feel fairly confident that neither Peterson or his Lawyers would be willing to do that. Most of the Lawyers seemed to think it was grandstanding. I guess we will see. As to upsetting a good conviction. You aren't doing that. My convictions are my convictions. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I don't expect it at this point. That's just my opinion. Laci deserves Justice Ray and living with the Law Myself and working with Lawyers every day I know how Prosecutions work. Most Prosecutors are EXTREMELY careful.They are very unwilling to prosecute weak cases. They do NOT want to get their Ass whipped and I can understand that. They carefully go over their "case" and then that case is reviewed by higher ups before they even proceed to charge a case. In a death penalty case, I cannot believe that the Prosecutors and their Superiors would embark on such a venture if they had a very weak case. Just have never seen it happen. If anything, I always found them to be too careful. I am very anxious to "hear" Peterson's own voice. That just might solve everyone's disagreements. Also, I don't hold grudges so relax. However, I also don't believe we need to suspect everything that moves and attach dishonest motives to hard working LE officers who have spent untold hours of overtime chasing down leads and verifying certain facts. The fact that they may not have taken an interest in certain eyewitnesses is understandable. Those people have basically ruled themselves out through the evidence gathered from Laci's body. Even Pixley said, that the pants match is a "problem" for the Defense and likely the most compelling piece of evidence he has heard so far. We may also find that Peterson may have left a fingerprint on the Duct tape. I believe some real surprises are in store for us. THAT'S JUST MY OPINION!!

Sorry if I was spoiling everyone's brandy and cigars and dreams of victory.

Do you remember your condescending post which immediately preceded my invitation to you to "kiss my derriere"? It was pretty personal. If you want, I'll go back and dig it up. Personally, I think you got off easy.

Lots of people here haven't been able to figure out your angle. You dutifully reiterate "I think he's guilty", then you qualify that by proceeding on to character assassination of a bunch of policemen of whom you have absolutely no personal knowledge. Here's the question that a lot of people have asked: What is your axe to grind with Modesto Police Department?

"The probative value is that she has no direct knowledge of the time, place, and participants of 'Actus Reus'[.]"

First of all, um, we don't necessarily know that that's a fact, do we? But yes, in general, we BELIEVE that she was nowhere around when the dirty deed was done.

That "probative value" only comes into play if/when the other party puts her on as a witness, thus asserting that she DOES have something relevant and material to testify to. You can't put on the impeachment FIRST--you have to wait till there's something to impeach.

I don't know why you insist on throwing around terms like "actus reus". A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

And next time your blood pressure shoots up and you decide to make me the target of your anger, please try to keep it clean, okay?

Really Co, it is not my intent to upset a good conviction, but at this point there is no good conviction and Anse has agreed to that off-line. Normally I would not relate that but she/he has gotten very aggressive. I mean, she/he has invited me on-line to kiss his/her ass simply b/c I offered advice...;-0). She did apologize off-line (character shows).

So you are forced to "relate" that I was trying to be fair to the defendant by trying to honestly evaluate the evidence we've seen so far? Gee, I really lived in fear that you would relate that. Not. Are you finding fault with my having found the evidence (some two weeks or more ago) to be thin? So what? Since when am I the person who will be deciding this case? It's an opinion, and yes, I'm trying hard to just go by the actual evidence. Thanks for complimenting me by pointing that out.

When I invited you to kiss my derriere, it was b/c you aimed one of your bitter posts at me, one which said, among other things, "Go back to bed and this time try to get out on the right side...I despise [Nancy Grace]... you will end up just like her..." and then you called Nancy Grace, whom you do not know personally, some sort of nasty name, I don't remember what it was but will be glad to go back and get your post.

Yeah, that was your "advice". And of course it was given with your usual "I know better... you people don't know about these things but I do" air. Okay, Expert--if you say so!

You may want to know that "off-line" is taken to mean off the internet. You know very well that you and I have never met except on the internet. Do me a favor and learn to express yourself more clearly. What you meant to say was that I had made these comments to you in e-mail or freepmail.

I'm getting kind of sick of your gratuitous insults like "GEEZ! me hopes it's she". Where are you getting that stuff?? From your own convoluted mind, "METHINKS".

You came out of nowhere, and joined in the discussion of this case. Many of us viewed you as a harmless and somewhat amusing older man. Then we began to notice that your thought processes left something to be desired. But we continued to treat you with cordiality, b/c you were just one of the gang, one of the Peterson thread posters. Inwardly, though, I began to realize that there are some missing synapses there. I persevered, but when you got all bitter and personal with me, I had had enough.

Now you get obscene with me, and attempt to get personal with me--with someone you only know as words typed on a screen. Your dirty little sexual references are by way of getting you branded as a "dirty old man", STOCKHRSE.

Why are you taking this case so personally? And why are you so insistent on trying to prove to everyone that you know things that the rest of us don't know? It's bunk, bunk coming from a mind that is not all there. JMO.

"Aggressive". Puh-leese. Oh, wait, I get it: everyone who expresses a view that differs from yours is "aggressive", right? Your attacks on a bunch of people in the news, people you've never met, are what is "aggressive". If you don't like my views, don't read 'em. You think I'm "aggressive" just b/c I finally had had enough of your half-baked, inexplicably bitter, accusations, and stopped cutting you slack. Get over it. If you don't like my posts and opinions, don't read 'em. Killing the messenger will not make your "side" win.