|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 8, 2005 15:47:17 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. 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. This is true. He did not make a very good impression at all. That interview with Dianne Sawyer when he said he told his wife he was having an affair, I say he's full of sh*t. But I don't know if I have the facts straight on that part yet.
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 8, 2005 15:51:02 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? I'm assuming the Defendant was probably advised not to testify. That would be very smart of him. I believe there are news articles that I read last night that stated that the jury didn't want to hear him testify. I read a lot so I may be lying (unintentional of coarse)....anyway, I don't have the links for proof so don't take my word unless you read it for yourself. That's what I'm getting at. You have to see for yourselves. Research. hugggz, Suzanne
|
|
|
Post by catskillz on Aug 8, 2005 15:53:54 GMT -5
And i was thinking, as to all things i think there's two sides to the lynchmob mentality, dubious media behavior, juror behavior and issues during the trial. Despite the obvious critics on this, in the end it might benifit scott and backfire on all those people since they have been steadily feeding scott and geragos bits and pieces for appeal. [Whether or not he did it and whether or not the trial outcome was influenced by media in the firstplace.]. It just disrupts the legal process, a guilty man could end up walking free and an innocent man could end getting the DP.
|
|
Ohpal
Settlin' In
Posts: 11
|
Post by Ohpal on Aug 8, 2005 15:54:46 GMT -5
I believe there are news articles that I read last night that stated that the jury didn't want to hear him testify. I read a lot so I may be lying (unintentional of coarse)....anyway, I don't have the links for proof so don't take my word unless you read it for yourself. My point is they don't get to decide just because they "don't want to hear it". If he had taken the stand they would have been forced to hear it, even if they didn't like it. Being a juror isn't mean to be all fun and games.
|
|
|
Post by shadez on Aug 8, 2005 15:58:57 GMT -5
Let's not forget the judge also heard all the evidence, who is very experienced in death penalty cases, and he upheld the sentence of death calling it one of the most despicable crimes, which I'm sure we all agree, was, but also had the choice of granting a new trial or at very least reducing the sentence to life in prison. Something he heard must have conviced him also of Scotts guilt.
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Aug 8, 2005 16:03:53 GMT -5
Let's not forget the judge also heard all the evidence, who is very experienced in death penalty cases, and he upheld the sentence of death calling it one of the most despicable crimes, which I'm sure we all agree, was, but also had the choice of granting a new trial or at very least reducing the sentence to life in prison. Something he heard must have conviced him also of Scotts guilt. The judge?? LMAO! He called his own trial an "Appellate Lawyers Petri Dish".......
|
|
|
Post by shadez on Aug 8, 2005 16:05:10 GMT -5
Let's not forget the judge also heard all the evidence, who is very experienced in death penalty cases, and he upheld the sentence of death calling it one of the most despicable crimes, which I'm sure we all agree, was, but also had the choice of granting a new trial or at very least reducing the sentence to life in prison. Something he heard must have conviced him also of Scotts guilt. The judge?? LMAO! He called his own trial an "Appellate Lawyers Petri Dish"....... And Deluchi said this when? and where?
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 8, 2005 16:09:21 GMT -5
Let's not forget the judge also heard all the evidence, who is very experienced in death penalty cases, and he upheld the sentence of death calling it one of the most despicable crimes, which I'm sure we all agree, was, but also had the choice of granting a new trial or at very least reducing the sentence to life in prison. Something he heard must have conviced him also of Scotts guilt. Juries aren't perfect and judges aren't perfect. Otherwise we wouldn't have the appeal process. As far as the Scott case goes. As I've said before, I'm not educated to say wheather he's innocent or guilty. I haven't read this entire transcript. None of us want a killer walking free however we don't what Scott's case to decide whether or not we have the appeal process in the first place. If he doesn't get his appeals, what about the people who are actually/factually innocent? That will surely affect them. I don't think any of us want to risk going to trial for murder because we were in the wrong place at the wrong time and because we cheated on our husband. That's not evidence. As far as the bodies of Laci and Conner, I can't debate that part. I haven't read enough on that. I see where people are thinking that they were planted. I personally don't think that....from what I've read so far, but all I've read is the opening statements, so I don't know and I'm not through with that part yet.
|
|
AW2B
Doin' Time
Posts: 71
|
Post by AW2B on Aug 8, 2005 16:09:22 GMT -5
The judge?? LMAO! He called his own trial an "Appellate Lawyers Petri Dish"....... And Deluchi said this when? and where? Trial TS: 23 THE COURT: Okay. I can just tell you 24 parenthetically, with all the issues that have been raised in 25 this case, if there is a conviction in this case, this will 26 be an appellate lawyers Petri dish. There is so many issues 20162 1 in this case, right? And I can and I have to make the 2 calls.
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 8, 2005 16:10:15 GMT -5
Let's not forget the judge also heard all the evidence, who is very experienced in death penalty cases, and he upheld the sentence of death calling it one of the most despicable crimes, which I'm sure we all agree, was, but also had the choice of granting a new trial or at very least reducing the sentence to life in prison. Something he heard must have conviced him also of Scotts guilt. The judge?? LMAO! He called his own trial an "Appellate Lawyers Petri Dish"....... Yes, I saw that somewhere too! I can't remember where. I must have seen it in a news article or something somewhere. I haven't gotten near that far in the TS.
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Aug 8, 2005 16:11:14 GMT -5
The judge?? LMAO! He called his own trial an "Appellate Lawyers Petri Dish"....... You said: And Deluchi said this when? and where? This is straight from the court transcripts.... came right out of Delucchi's mouth in open court: 23 THE COURT: Okay. I can just tell you 24 parenthetically, with all the issues that have been raised in 25 this case, if there is a conviction in this case, this will 26 be an appellate lawyers Petri dish. There is so many issues
20162 1 in this case, right? And I can and I have to make the 2 calls. And I'm willing to do that.
|
|
|
Post by shadez on Aug 8, 2005 16:11:54 GMT -5
Then why didn't he declare a mistrial or grant a new one?
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Aug 8, 2005 16:14:43 GMT -5
Then why didn't he declare a mistrial or grant a new one? politics and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 8, 2005 16:15:45 GMT -5
Yep, I see it too 23 THE COURT: Okay. I can just tell you 24 parenthetically, with all the issues that have been raised in 25 this case, if there is a conviction in this case, this will 26 be an appellate lawyers Petri dish. There is so many issues 20162 1 in this case, right? And I can and I have to make the 2 calls. And I'm willing to do that. And I have read the 3 prosecution's brief. And what is the prosecution's 4 position?
|
|
AW2B
Doin' Time
Posts: 71
|
Post by AW2B on Aug 8, 2005 16:16:19 GMT -5
Then why didn't he declare a mistrial or grant a new one? In general, that's how judges operate..they make decisions and they stick to it no matter what...that's why they make mistakes..unfortunately...
|
|