|
Post by conner on Aug 8, 2005 15:12:35 GMT -5
I see, the same media who convicted, also attempted to acquit. The jurors who so often violated their oaths, must have missed Dr. Wecht's "testimony" on his many media appearances.
Again, there was no testimony from Dr. Wecht. Just wanted to correct the poster on that fact. It is puzzling that the good doctor did not testify at trial, another blown chance for raising that reasonable doubt that the jurors may have wanted to hear. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by shadez on Aug 8, 2005 15:16:40 GMT -5
Thanks for pointing that out conner. No one is saying the trial was prefect, and I personally was disgusted by the way the jurors acted after the trial, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to put 2 and 2 together. If it were I in his shoes I would have been doing everything I could do to find her, and worry less about golf, parties, and all the extra cirricular activities he participated in while his wife was missing. Human nature guides us on how people "should" behave in such circumstances, but until we are there, we don't know. But I do know I wouldn't be playing golf or dying my hair if I were truly innocent...
|
|
|
Post by lisageyes on Aug 8, 2005 15:18:33 GMT -5
This is my first posting so please go easy on the comments, im sure I will receive some with what I have to say. We are not ones to judge. There is a higher being that will in the end judge all of us. The person who did this knows what was done. This was an unfortunate situtation for all involved. A beautiful woman and her child was taked away by a horrific crime. I only pray that she is laughing and smiling with Conner and that she knows no harm. As for Scott, he now has to look out his window and wonder what could have been. I just feel that all around we are not the ones to judge..
|
|
Ohpal
Settlin' In
Posts: 11
|
Post by Ohpal on Aug 8, 2005 15:19:50 GMT -5
Also- Scott was on trial for murder, not adultry. Yes, he was on trial for murder, but proving adultery was establishing bad character and motive for the very heinous he was then convicted of.
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 8, 2005 15:22:13 GMT -5
There is more to all this then y'all know. Never believe everything you hear on the news. You only get one side of the story. hugggz, Suzanne No, but records don't lie.. I heard the tapes as I'm sure you did. "Amber... I'm at the Eiffel tower its new years eve" And the time on the phone bills that are shown on courttv ARE during the same time as Lacis vigil Jan 31. I have the trial transcript. It is very lengthy. I'm reading through it. The media didn't tell the whole story. Also I've know chronic liars who would lie for no reason. That did not make them murderers. I'm not defending Scott. I'm just saying there is more to this story and many on here who are debating the issues aren't qualified to debate the issues based on what the media presented.
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 8, 2005 15:27:22 GMT -5
Thanks for pointing that out conner. No one is saying the trial was prefect, and I personally was disgusted by the way the jurors acted after the trial, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to put 2 and 2 together. If it were I in his shoes I would have been doing everything I could do to find her, and worry less about golf, parties, and all the extra cirricular activities he participated in while his wife was missing. Human nature guides us on how people "should" behave in such circumstances, but until we are there, we don't know. But I do know I wouldn't be playing golf or dying my hair if I were truly innocent... How do you know Scott wasn't looking for Laci? Because of the media? I hope that's not the case.
|
|
|
Post by shadez on Aug 8, 2005 15:27:56 GMT -5
No, but records don't lie.. I heard the tapes as I'm sure you did. "Amber... I'm at the Eiffel tower its new years eve" And the time on the phone bills that are shown on courttv ARE during the same time as Lacis vigil Jan 31. I have the trial transcript. It is very lengthy. I'm reading through it. The media didn't tell the whole story. So do I, anyone can read the transcript on courttv.com. The media did boast it and take an anti-Scott stance since the beginning, but their was a reason for this, the way Scott conducted himself. The media has also taken very pro-defendant stances in the past also. You can't always blame the media. Scott told people he was going golfing Christmas Eve, then, when he realized people saw him at Berkley Marina, he changed his story to fishing. He is definitely not the brightest bulb on the planet, he did himself in.
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 8, 2005 15:29:32 GMT -5
Read the transcript than, please.
|
|
|
Post by shadez on Aug 8, 2005 15:29:35 GMT -5
Thanks for pointing that out conner. No one is saying the trial was prefect, and I personally was disgusted by the way the jurors acted after the trial, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to put 2 and 2 together. If it were I in his shoes I would have been doing everything I could do to find her, and worry less about golf, parties, and all the extra cirricular activities he participated in while his wife was missing. Human nature guides us on how people "should" behave in such circumstances, but until we are there, we don't know. But I do know I wouldn't be playing golf or dying my hair if I were truly innocent... How do you know Scott wasn't looking for Laci? Because of the media? I hope that's not the case. Why was he: 1) Observed sitting in a mall parking lot for 45 minutes when he was supposed to be handing out missing flyers. 2) Why was he observed dumping boxes of Laci flyers in a dumpster? Use your head
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 8, 2005 15:32:10 GMT -5
Will that be in the transcripts? If that will be in there, then I'll read that part. But there is more to the story......that's not evidence that he killed her. He's a dog and we know this. The man is on DR. I sure hope the transcripts show enough evidence without reasonable doubt to convict him to death.
|
|
|
Post by shadez on Aug 8, 2005 15:37:38 GMT -5
Will that be in the transcripts? If that will be in there, then I'll read that part. But there is more to the story......that's not evidence that he killed her. He's a dog and we know this. The man is on DR. I sure hope the transcripts show enough evidence without reasonable doubt to convict him to death. I agree with you, it is not proof he killed her. He sunk himself, there probably should have been a mistrial declared. I am just stating facts that have been proven that leads to his guilt. If I was accused of killing my wife, no matter what my attorney said I would take the stand and declare my innocence. Just so many indiscrepencies that he made makes it extremely hard to believe he did not do it. That one interview he did, where he said, when asked, How was Laci? He answered, "Oh she was, er, is great!" just to much for me to think any other.
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 8, 2005 15:39:31 GMT -5
Will that be in the transcripts? If that will be in there, then I'll read that part. But there is more to the story......that's not evidence that he killed her. He's a dog and we know this. The man is on DR. I sure hope the transcripts show enough evidence without reasonable doubt to convict him to death. I agree with you, it is not proof he killed her. He sunk himself, there probably should have been a mistrial declared. I am just stating facts that have been proven that leads to his guilt. If I was accused of killing my wife, no matter what my attorney said I would take the stand and declare my innocence. Just so many indiscrepencies that he made makes it extremely hard to believe he did not do it. That one interview he did, where he said, when asked, How was Laci? He answered, "Oh she was, er, is great!" just to much for me to think any other. It's my understanding that the jury didn't want to hear him. He's been known to lie (edited). They wouldn't believe what he said anyway. I sure wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by catskillz on Aug 8, 2005 15:42:56 GMT -5
I'm a bit on shadez' side here, but maggie u allready know (not changed on this part).. I find his behavior (sorry yes the B-Word again!) not appropriate and not showing the concern and effort i'd expect. The TV interview really impressed me in a negative way, i've watched it again and can't get rid of that 'not good' feeling. I know very well i could be wrong, but it's an impression many people have. The fact that one has this impression doesn't mean much really imo, it's rather the way people talk about this or the value they give them with respect to the trial and conviction. U can have all the impressions u want but when it's time to make up the balance, u should give it the proper weight, if any.
|
|
|
Post by shadez on Aug 8, 2005 15:43:37 GMT -5
I agree with you, it is not proof he killed her. He sunk himself, there probably should have been a mistrial declared. I am just stating facts that have been proven that leads to his guilt. If I was accused of killing my wife, no matter what my attorney said I would take the stand and declare my innocence. Just so many indiscrepencies that he made makes it extremely hard to believe he did not do it. That one interview he did, where he said, when asked, How was Laci? He answered, "Oh she was, er, is great!" just to much for me to think any other. It's my understanding that the jury didn't want to hear him. He's a liar. They wouldn't believe what he said anyway. I sure wouldn't. If I was innocent I wouldn't care what the jury "wanted" to hear, but then again, if I was innocent I probably would not been in his place. The jury said that the main two things that made them convict was his lack of emotion and the Amber tapes. Both of which were damning. We can only go on by what was told to us, what we saw, and what we heard and left to make up our own mind. We weren't in the jury, who heard alot more then just the things I have mentioned, and they convicted him.
|
|
Ohpal
Settlin' In
Posts: 11
|
Post by Ohpal on Aug 8, 2005 15:44:34 GMT -5
It's my understanding that the jury didn't want to hear him. He's a liar. They wouldn't believe what he said anyway. I sure wouldn't. Excuse my ignorance, but does the jury get to make that call? As far as I know (I've sat through one very lengthy jury trial) the jury just sits there and listens. They don't get to decide who takes the stand... do they?
|
|