[Queen Jadis]

. I don't think rushing the case to trial would be to Scott's advantage.

I agree with you. The passage of time works to his advantage. The inevitable emotions and feelings on the part of jurors will be mitigated in favor of the defense over time, this seems to be the case when the general opinions are predominately in favor of guilt. It's human nature. Harsher judgements mellow over time.

Any witness testimony that points to guilt will become cloudier over time, and will not stand up as well when cross examined. Although this is not a case that will be cinched by witness testimony IMHO. However, given that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, witness testimony is stronger for the prosecution close to the event vs. the defense. All the defense has to do is present a doubt. Whereas the prosecution has the burden of proof. It benefits the prosecution if they have good witnesses go to trial faster.

One of the reasons that the defense will want to move the trial away from Modesto is that the jurors will be under "pressure" to convict scott as community members in Modesto, having to answer to their neighbors. Especially given the statistics of opinion of guilt within that community, hovering around 85% guilty. Going back to the OJ trial which is very different on some levels but the similar on others, It's similarity lies in the fact that location and jury pool will be a factor in the outcome of the trial.

OJ was tried in downtown Los Angeles where the jury pool was predominatly African American. Those jurors had to answer to their own neighbors within their community, the prevailing issues were not issues of justice per se, the issues were of justice to their race and the case was presented brilliantly by jonnie cochran as such. Also another example would be the Rodney King trial, tried in conservative Simi Valley. In both these cases had they been tried in opposite demographic areas I believe the verdicts and methods used by the defense would have been different.

If you follow this logic, we don't have an issue of race but we do have an issue of public opinion being in favor of guilt, as time goes by the emotional weight of the case will dissipate whether it is tried in Modesto or not. The point that I am trying to make is that you have to consider all factors with a jury pool.

The prevailing factor that will lead to a conviction or aquital will lie in the jury pool and it's location and the information that is leaked. What the defense attorney and jury analysist will do is to consider the time factor and demographics of the location of the trial as it pertains to their defense theory. In the case of Sp I think that race is not a factor as much as location of the trial, the class of people in the area, and their conservatism or liberalism. The amount of time that is allowed to pass before SP goes to trial is a factor that will favor the defense in this case.

MG is no idiot...he is doing damage control, and serving the interests of his client. I don't think that witnesses will be of an issue as much as the climate of opinion that has prevailed in relation to Scott's guilt. MG is floating theories to immediately offer a counter to the prevailing opinions of SP guilt. In essence if the trial takes place a year or 2 from now the jury pool will remember the counter theories as much as the theories that pointed to Scott's guilt. The fact that the theory is so "out there" may not be so stupid...mainly because it is so memorable. Therefore offering a memorable counter point to the conclusion of Scott's guilt.

[Devil_Anse]

Great post!!

One thing, if Geragos gets a change of venue, he still won't be able to pick and choose the new venue. It would tickle me pink if he wound up with a "worse" venue--a "worse" jury pool.

There will be some jurors who will take it to heart when the judge tells them, "Only use what you hear/see in this courtroom to influence your decision."

The prosecution got a huge leg up when the bodies were found. I honestly thought they'd never be found, and that we'd all just be left wondering here, until the whole thing faded away, as the case of poor Chandra Levy has.

It is just so hard to explain away some of Scott's behavior that we've heard about. For example, his calling of Amber right through all this, and at first acting like nothing happened. Then, his disposal of Laci's possessions. At the very least, it looks like he was kind of glad she was gone.

Once the trial is on, the defense will have to streamline down to one or two of their "theories"; otherwise, the jurors might well get sick of their inconsistency, as we have.

Scott has such a poor alibi. It seems jurors are going to be sitting there thinking, "Okay, she died. All I want to know is, where was he when she died?" This might force Scott's team to put him on the stand.

For their sake, hope that if they do, they've thoroughly coached him, as William Kennedy Smith was prepared for HIS testimony. Furthermore, Smith was smarter than Scott. I imagine any period of testimony by Scott will be a real nail-biter for his lawyers.

While he will not have to prove his innocence in his trial, I still feel that I will want to see some proof of it. I'm still stuck on Scott as the only logical suspect.