Posted on 07/20/2004 5:33:48 AM PDT by runningbear
Pinging......
Pinging......
This guy is going to get off.
won't know until it is over, and verdict reached.... Thanks for the opinion... Pundits interpretations wants me to hurl on the justice system.
That's a nice way of reporting: the article tells us what Pickle-Nose said, but not what the witness said. I assume they swore Pickle-Nose in before he testified...
As far as I could tell, Court TV did not have Nancy Grace's show on last night.
Guess her viewpoint doesn't fit in with their own bought-and-paid for promotion of only the defense side. We can look to see Geragos face, with its flapping lips and eyes that won't open all the way, on Court TV as practically a permanent fixture, after this case is over.
I've been saying that for several months, and so far the prosecution is basically proving their own case weak, bogus, and contrived.
It's looking more and more like the defense won't even have to put on a case. Unless the prosecution can come up with a LOT more than it has, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict a directed verdict of not guilty when the prosecution rests its case. This thing isn't even going to go to the jury.
I basically concur. There needs to be some more evidence, which I am afraid they don't have. Geragos is very good, and if you show you have a weak case, he will punish you.
Funny thing was of that fire, as I was calling my sister for a heads up alert, this Egret bird was flying all over the fire and smoke area, continuously going into the smokey area, and after a while, I lost sight of the bird. Wonder why it kept circling? Co worker thinks, food!
Juror #5 was on Catherine Crier yesterday and basically admitted that the jury discussed the case on breaks. I could tell that Mickey Sherman & Leslie Schneider were shocked, however, they tried to gloss it over by saying that all juries talk before deliberating (which I thought was stupid). I've been on two juries and never violated this rule. What is the chance that this would cause a mistrial? Do you think the judge will question the other jurors? I'm sure he'll hear about it!
Wow, you had a close call, didn't you??
Those fires look terrible on TV, that's all I know! As for that crazy bird, I can't imagine. Maybe that bird has developed a taste for cooked food...
LOL... maybe.. It was still burning but on the other side of the river this morning. Glowing....
I've been thinking about a possible scenario, one that pretty much assured Scott that there would be no evidence to trip him up. Try this one...
Scott put the date-rape drup into her beverage that she drank with her pizza. It hit her as she was undressing. He bundled the living, but comatose, Laci into the truck, drove her to the Bay and popped her over the back of the boat, with her weights, shrink wrap etc. (that he had previously applied at his secret warehouse.)
He drove up the next day, worried that he didn't get her into the channel the night before. He had to check his handy work. When he was seen, he decided to use that alibi, knowing no one could swear to seeing anything but a lone fisherman.
He may have used a different launch site for the first trip. How long does the drug work? Asking about the cadaver dogs would just be a joke at the cops' expense, since he would know there was no corpse smell to track. And he worked hard to confuse the live scents.
To me, this makes the lack of evidence fit. He must have thought long and hard, and did the computer research, to pull off the 'perfect' crime, so there aren't going to be conventional pieces of damning evidence.
I think his own voice is going to provide the best circumstantial evidence to condemn him.
I also hope the prosecution is putting its dead ends and weakest evidence on at the beginning, so it doesn't slow down momentum later on.
But then, I'm a NG on Westerfield, so I don't have my hopes up too high for a big finish, either. I just know in my heart the guy did it.
Pinz
(re Westerfield: I've watched closely for a description of his offering up the body. I've only seen carefully worded statements 'suggesting' that offer, while the action was coming from the prosecutors asking him to mark the map. Just saying...)
Yes, I heard he said that. I can't help but think he was, er, shall we say, embellishing?
This fool ran out of useful information about this trial some time ago. So he is grasping at straws to make any sort of relevant comment, to justify the TV appearances and limelight which he apparently loves.
If the judge were to think it was true, I'm sure he'd call the jurors in and instruct them about this yet again. I don't think this will cause a mistrial.
on Court TV as practically a permanent fixture, after ..
---
Only if he wins. If he looses, with all the help he's getting from the pros., then he'll just look bad. Still, they'll have him on occasionaly as focused expert on LE/DA screw ups. I wonder if Grandeos has a contract with CTV, that maybe has been deferred till this case is over?
If Snott is found not guilty could Snott sue S. County LE?
It appears so, but there's a long way to go in the trial yet and with a little luck the prosecution will come up with more solid evidence to prove their case.
I think your idea about the GHB sounds possible. We know he researched GHB on the computer. (When will they get to the computer evidence? So far they've only discussed his "fishing" research, which happened to be printed out next to his office computer... that scored a point for the prosecution, btw.)
Maybe she was comatose, and dying from overdose, when he did all his wrapping, and maybe he himself is not sure exactly at what point she died. B/C I think he asked about cadaver dogs out of worry.
Remember, there was also a story, apparently true, that when they'd cleared off some road so the dogs could track, Scott drove past the barricades and was hanging around. The police thought he was trying to confuse the dogs, if the dogs were at the moment tracking HIS scent. Although apparently they can't introduce evidence of the dogs' findings, I wonder if they can introduce evidence of Scott's guilty behavior that day they were searching with the dogs. Alas, probably not.
My problem is I can't remember what's already been testified to, and what hasn't. I hope they've already gotten in the part about his calling the police in the middle of the night, asking about his gun, and about "cadaver dogs", and about "grief counselors".
Actually, that's what I was thinking: that he has an incipient contract with Court TV. Certainly, I really believe that he has Court TV in his pocket.
Heaven knows, he was always all over TV before he took this case--and not just as a Peterson case commentator. You couldn't get away from him. Regardless of what happens with this trial, I dread the day when he is free again to be constantly on those shows. I remember thinking that he was on Larry King more than Larry King was!
Yes, Scott could sue for malicious prosecution. One can only do this if there is a not guilty. But I don't think the evidence is there to sustain a suit for malicious prosecution: the police's actions in this case were understandable. They weren't out to target him--why should they? What was he to them? Just a citizen with no prior criminal record.
I still want to know why Court TV didn't have Nancy Grace's show on last night!!
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.