Ruling is expected today on search warrants

The Modesto Bee ^ | June 12, 2003 | John Cote'

[hobbes1]

Hey...did you see This ? Unrelated....

[Howlin]

Oh happy day! I love Dennis Miller!!!! Glad Fox got him!

[Howlin]

Labine allegedly issued the warrant allowing Scott Peterson's phones to be tapped from Jan.10 to April 18

And why wouldn't they? It was obvious at that point in time that not one word of what Scott Peterson had told them was true.

[hobbes1]

Well generally, and I could be wrong on this, but isn't it proper to to accumulate EVIDENCE then fit it to suspect, not find a Suspect, then fit the evidence to him?

[Howlin]

Yes, it is. And we still haven't seen what the prosecution has; but whatever it is, they had enough to get search warrants and wiretaps.

[Howlin]

Hmmmmmmmmm....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/927864/posts

[hobbes1]

However, and that gets to my point, sometimesn the way the get them is rather flimsy.

(LIke Vanatters warrant for the Rockingham Property that was willfully false in almost EVERY respect...)

[melodie]

LOL!!!! I wonder if he will show up to work on SP's "innocence project".

[Devil_Anse]

But I am awfully fond of that whole thing about making the GOVERNMENT actually PROVE things beyond a reasonable doubt

And the many sleazy tricks used to defend the Clintonistas in the past SHOULD disturb us, as MizSterious implied in saying that Geragos (a true Clintonista) disturbed her.

You want to talk about accountability by those involved in a legal matter? In what way was it legitimate for a lawyer such as Bruce Lindsey, or his partners, to provide affidavits, which sometimes did not accurately reflect the facts known to a female former sex partner of a civil-suit defendant, in order to deny a plaintiff her fair access to the courts? There's a thin line btw defending someone zealously, and letting one's zeal override one's obligations of fairness. And it is not only the GOVERNMENT which sometimes oversteps the bounds of fairness in legal cases.

IMO, MizSterious was correct in deploring the use of Clintonista tactics in this murder case--zealous defense or not.

People never tire of complaining of the sleaziness of lawyers. Yet when they see someone like Geragos or Johnny Cochran turning legal representation into another form of the Daley vote-fixing schemes, they applaud. It doesn't make sense--which is probably why most lawyers simply tune out the broken-record-like complaints of the public.

[Devil_Anse]

Who paid the police to "fixate" on Geragos' client? Or what was their motivation? Was it "Get Scott Peterson" month down at the MPD?

[Devil_Anse]

Of COURSE Geragos need not prove anything!! So WHY did Geragos make public announcements, full of fanfare, that he was going to SOLVE this murder case, and that they "knew" who did it??

[Devil_Anse]

Why tap his phones? Maybe b/c if Laci had been kidnapped, the logical person for the kidnapper to contact to try to get ransom, would be her husband?

[Howlin]

Judge said in his ruling that the media DID prove their case for the warrants to be unsealed.

[Devil_Anse]

WHO's comfortable with "the police knowing best"?? That's why they had a JUDGE supervising the police!

So now the judge doesn't "know best", either. So next time they'd better have a congressman supervising HIM. And they can get a senator to supervise the congressman, and the president can supervise the senator, and Kofi Annan can supervise the president...

[hobbes1]

Any reaonable thinking person would conclude that the LADA lost the Simpson case.


Johnnie is not to blame for their incompetence.

As for overstepping the bounds, that should be punished severely, however, offending people, because they are in a rush to stampede to aguilty verdict is hardly overstepping the bounds....

[RGSpincich]

If that was to hold any water, the Tap would not have been surreptitious, now would it?

Yes it would. This is the same guy who required the police to get search warrants before letting them into the house to search for clues in his wife's disappearance. Catching kidnappers need not come with the cooperation of the next of kin as it is the people of California who want the kidnappers apprehended.

Because we "think' something may be going on

You are not accurate in paraphrasing my second reason. His own words stating that he knew who did it hardly qualifies as a fishing expedition. The next of kin tells his secret girlfriend that he knows who is responsible for his wife's disappearance and you call that fishing? (And the police have it on tape...from Amber's willing phone tap)

[hobbes1]

Who Paid the Police to focus on OJ, less than 3 hours after the discovery of a crime scene?


Who knows, Lazy maybe....

[hobbes1]

This is the same guy who required the police to get search warrants before letting them into the house

As well they should. He has a legal right to document WHY they are in his home...

[Devil_Anse]

Great analogy... OJ.

His zealous defense team forced the state to prove its case. The rest is history... the system worked.

Unless, of course, a couple of those jurors were paid off....naaahhhhh...

[Devil_Anse]

If you're saying that the state can never have a good reason to apply to a judge/magistrate for a warrant, and tap someone's phone, why don't you get to work with Congress and have the federal laws changed on the grounds that they are unconstitutional? The state laws will then have to fall in behind.