Former Attorney Says Defense Is 'Strong'Kirk McAllister Is Protecting Key Witnesses

NBC11 ^ | May 1, 2003 | Karen Brown

[Canadian Outrage]

I bought one of the NE's and there was only two pics of Snott and Amber. There wasn't one of her sitting on his lap and him in a Santa hat. There was only two, one of them standing and him smiling from ear to ear in front of a Xmas tree and the other he had his arms around her waist!! Barf. I am so P'Od at Geragos. What a scheming self serving slimeball. God I hope the DA's office puts up a really good Prosecution team. They are going to have to be really sharp people who look good and sound good to a Jury. It surely can't be that guy that looks sort of stoned.

[Canadian Outrage]

I bought one of the NE's and there was only two pics of Snott and Amber. There wasn't one of her sitting on his lap and him in a Santa hat. There was only two, one of them standing and him smiling from ear to ear in front of a Xmas tree and the other he had his arms around her waist!! Barf. I am so P'Od at Geragos. What a scheming self serving slimeball. God I hope the DA's office puts up a really good Prosecution team. They are going to have to be really sharp people who look good and sound good to a Jury. It surely can't be that guy that looks sort of stoned.

[pbear8]

Thanks for the ping to Registered's new one!

[runningbear]

:o)

[runningbear]

it is a special edition, dated May 19th.... About 6 double pages of the whole case....

[runningbear]

thanks vel, that was great of Registered

[winstonchurchill]

he as an attorney and knows that SP is innocent and can prove it, before the arrest, than shame on him for not bringing forth that information to MPD and have the investigators move on to other leads, therefore, leaving ol scaught alone.

Now I am an old prosecutor and have never defended a crook, but if you believe this you are really dopey. Nothing -- absolutely nothing -- was going to prevent MPD from arresting SP.

Now, I do believe -- from what little we in the public know -- that SP probably did the deed, but whether he did or not, the attorney would have been stupid to turn his witnesses over to the cops (assuming they didn't have them). The cops would simply pressure them until they wilted and then turn back to prosecuting SP.

[Yeti]

When asked why, he said, "because we investigated it instead of calling press conferences like the police did."

SLAM!!!

I hate to say it, but I will be relieved if he didn't do it, and just because his lawyers don't leak to the tabloids doesn't mean they don't have anything. If they identify the witnesses, they will get death threats and intimidation. But then again, talk is cheap, and no matter how many Enquirer articles are posted, we won't really know until the time comes, will we?

Regarding the postponment, I can't believe anyone here actually thinks that any sane lawyer would recommend that Scott go to trial in the midst of the mob thing that's going on in Modesto right now. They will probably wait to see if they can spring him until the trial, and if they can't they will try to hurry up with the trial, but elsewhere.

[Canadian Outrage]

Point taken. However, why are the Defense NOT pressing for a speedy trial so that they can present this "rock solid" evidence?? It's my opinion that they need to "work" with their so called witnesses, coach them well, and they need to decide where and what they can pick at. I do hope that the Prosecution is nailing down some very good experts Immediately. Like Dr. Baden who is convinced that the way body is dismembered is very consistent with being weighted down. In fact he made the statement, "That body was NEVER supposed to surface"!!. Also Dr. Lee. Dr. Henry Lee stated that he trained the Modesto Police in the methods of proper collection of evidence for forensic testing.

[runningbear]

okay...then at what point would you not put your client into a legal rope, knowing you have evidence that your client is innocent? Just keep letting him sink in the cell? Why? FYI. Just curious as to why if a person is innocent of a crime, why put that person thru hell, and have PD move on to find the real criminal? :o) just some thoughts here....

[mabelkitty]

His parents or someone in his family is going to perjure and/or obstruct justice.

[winstonchurchill]

Why sit in jail for two years waiting for your defense witnesses to die?

I'm not sure of your assumption. If you are thinking of elderly witnesses there is a deposition procedure (seldom used in criminal law) to preserve the testimony. But the real problem with premature disclosure is the tremendous pressure which the cops can put on a third-party witness. First thing you know, your relatives start getting arrested for overdue parking tickets.

If its a 'scientific' witness, grants start getting declined.

Best approach is to keep it under your hat to as close to trial as possible and then spring it. It's called protecting your witnesses.

I do only civil litigation, but I try -- within the law of civil discovery -- to postpone developing witnesses as long as possible. Few hold up against powerful adversaries if exposed too early.

[pitinkie]

piiinnnggg!!!!!!!1

[Canadian Outrage]

Especially since little Snotty is SO above sitting in jail. According to his father "he's hurting, he looks terrible, he's lost 20 pounds". You know I remember Lee Peterson saying after Laci was missing for about two weeks that poor Scott had lost 20 pounds. I wonder if this is still the same 20 pounds?? Those Peterson parents are so full of S--t!!Poor Scott my butt, it wasn't hardly any time after Laci disappeared that he was drinking and having fun and socializing and playing golf and buying new vehicles and trying sell the house. That guy was attempting to get rid of anything and everything that reminded him of Laci and their life together. Of course he had not met his son yet and I guess did not plan to.

[Yeti]

You're right, once it was obvious what direction the MPD momentum is going, any cooperation from SP would be self-destructive.

The prosecution will get the info during the discovery phase of the trial. After all, if MPD isn't sharing, why should the defense?

I'm still inclined to think it was Amber with Scott knowing she did it, or Scott with Amber playing puppeteer.

I was thinking the other night, I'm not sure a blow to the stomach of a pregnant woman would make her vomit. Has anyone considered poisoning? Or that the vomit might be Scott's or Amber's(or whoever the perp is)? I remember a case where a sherriff's daughter was taking a lie detector for having shaken a child to death. When they got to the question, "did you do it?" she started vomiting uncontrollably. The test was ruled inconclusive.

[Canadian Outrage]

I fully understand what you just said. My question is that iif the Defense Have HAD this rock solid witness since way before Scott was arrested. Then why would they not have gone with the witness to talk to the police so that the police could investigate this "other" lead. Your scenario is right if there has already been an arrest but McAllister sounds like he's had this witness or witnesses since very early on. Sounds a lot like bluster to me.

[RGSpincich]

I can't believe anyone here actually thinks that any sane lawyer would recommend that Scott go to trial in the midst of the mob thing that's going on in Modesto right now.

The preliminary hearing is in front of a judge only. Don't think he'll poll the mob. Perfect spot to trot out the "rock solid" defense witnesses to clear the boy. Have him home by the 20th of May. If that doesn't work THEN you go into the stall defense. The police/DA will be told of the defense witnesses, California is a reciprocal discovery state.

[winstonchurchill]

why are the Defense NOT pressing for a speedy trial so that they can present this "rock solid" evidence?? It's my opinion that they need to "work" with their so called witnesses, coach them well, and they need to decide where and what they can pick at.

Well, of course, that's possible. But it is also possible that they are getting a lot of police reports with 'preliminary results' and 'further testing planned'. So if you spring too early, you get the 'oh, yeah, you're right, that test didn't prove anything, but now we've done the supercalifragilistic test that we hadn't done when we gave you that report.' Lots of gamesmanship on all sides of this kind of thing.

Remember there isn't anyone in the courtroom interested in a dispassionate search for truth, except maybe the prosecutor himself -- and in a high profile case like this, discount that as well. But the cops are certainly no better than the defense is selecting only evidence that covers them.

I'm an old prosecutor and I can't tell you the number of times the cops lied to me to try to buttress their arrest.

Here's the bottom line, we just don't know very much at all about the state of the case against SP. But I hope the DA is smarter than he has sounded thus far. Our lawyer (the DA is supposed to represent 'the People') sounds to me like a complete dolt.

[winstonchurchill]

My question is that iif the Defense Have HAD this rock solid witness since way before Scott was arrested. Then why would they not have gone with the witness to talk to the police so that the police could investigate this "other" lead.

I doubt any witness is that strong. What could it be? An alibi? The window period is simply too long and malleable for an alibi to be 'rock solid'. The Cops would just adjust the timeline somewhat.

With a circumstantial case, it's a lot of little pieces for the prosecution and a lot of little rebuttal pieces. No one or two witnesses would 'destroy' the circumstantial case.

[Canadian Outrage]

I'm a little worried about the Prosecutor they have shown so far. My hope is they will put together a "crack Prosecutorial team". A team that has plenty of murder convictions under their collective belts. Also they need to secure their "experts" now. In the case of Peterson, I don't think that family can afford a bunch of experts and I'm not sure that there are many around that like to work gratis.