[drjulie]

"I watched LKL tonight and as USUAL Chris Pixley makes me so damn mad. He's CLEARLY talking FOR Geragos."

I watched LKL, too. A walk on the dark side, to be sure. Pixie said some rather startling things. He said he had met the family & that he had examined the evidence. Huh? Of course, Nancy Grace has met the Rocha's because she interviewed them in her capacity as a reporter for CTV. Why would Pixie have met the Peterson's? How would he get the evidence? Is he working for the defense team???? Is this a way for MG to get around the gag order?

Also, JoEllen D. was on. Interesting that she is working now for the prosecution in the Kobe Bryant case. She is very good and I was concerned when I heard that the defense hired her in this case. She said last night that her success rate (when they follow her advice) is about 80%. Of course, she works both sides so that probably would pull her success rate up, as opposed to someone who just does defense cases (my assumption is that once a case goes to trial, the prosecution general has a higher success rate than the defense across the board, but I don't know this for a fact).

[Devil_Anse]

Is [Chris Pixie] working for the defense team?

My opinion is, YES. Yes, working for them. As in, receiving compensation to assist them. That's my opinion, anyway.

Did you follow the Chandra Levy saga? I did. Geragos was an omnipresent yammering-face on every show. Months after these many, many appearances--in ALL of which he took Gary Condit's part--he revealed that he had been hired by Condit and had been working for Condit DURING SOME OF THE TIME when he had been on TV arguing Condit's case. But during the time he had been previously arguing Condit's case, he had NOT disclosed his affiliation with Condit.

IMO, the expressions of opinion on here--that Geragos is far less than honest--are well-founded and accurate.

I have respect for Jo Ellen Demetrius' craft, but I still think that jury selection is always a crapshoot. Sometimes persons can be wrong when they judge jurors by the jurors' visible attributes. As an example: when I was 22, I was a state worker. Yes, employed by the government. In a social work-like position. I was called for jury duty. The pool was being quizzed about a death penalty case, a murder for hire. My personal feelings, as I heard the case described, were, first and foremost, GREAT sympathy for the victim, who was an elderly man who had been shot down in the rain, in his own driveway. Then, as now, I was a firm supporter of the death penalty. I would not have hesitated to give it in that case, had the evidence stacked up in a certain way.

The prosecutor (pursuant to the Witherspoon case) asked us, "If we prove that X caused the murder of Y, could you recommend the death penalty?"

I knew I COULD. IF, that is, I found that the whole thing warranted the death penalty. (I don't think EVERY situation requires the death penalty!) So, trying to be as accurate as possible, I said, "Yes, I could."

I was bumped by the prosecutor. I have absolutely no doubt that he used my occupation, which was listed on the jury list, as his reason for excusing me from serving. He saw, "state worker" and his mind made the association: "liberal"--"anti-death penalty". He was wrong.

I believe that Jo Ellen D. can do no more than make educated guesses, similar to what that prosecutor did.

[Canadian Outrage]

I found that rather startling myself. WHY would Pixley be meeting with the Peterson family and WHY would HE be examining the evidence? My theory is so that he can, by a backdoor method, break the gag order for Geragos and spin the Defense side. He's attempting to influence prospective Jurors.