Ohpal
Settlin' In
Posts: 11
|
Post by Ohpal on Aug 8, 2005 16:17:22 GMT -5
The judge?? LMAO! He called his own trial an "Appellate Lawyers Petri Dish"....... in my own interpretation of that sentance... it means he knew the trial was going to be appealed. any judge in their right mind would know a trial like this would be appealed. first of all, it was very high-profile. second of all, 90% of cases like this go into appellate court. on a side note, if i had to lay down some money, id say they get they will get the conviction again.
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 8, 2005 16:18:22 GMT -5
I don't by the motive. I think that's where the Prosecution started off going wrong. I have a feeling the more I read this, the more I'll believe they were way off on "motive".
|
|
|
Post by shadez on Aug 8, 2005 16:19:20 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? I do agree that it is an appelate lawyers dream, as I stated in earlier post. I just didn't/don't remember the Judge saying it. Especially releasing the one juror that was holding out on a guilt verdict and thus was dismissed a day before the guilty verdict came down.
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 8, 2005 16:19:41 GMT -5
The judge?? LMAO! He called his own trial an "Appellate Lawyers Petri Dish"....... in my own interpretation of that sentance... it means he knew the trial was going to be appealed. any judge in their right mind would know a trial like this would be appealed. first of all, it was very high-profile. second of all, 90% of cases like this go into appellate court. on a side note, if i had to lay down some money, id say they get they will get the conviction again. Most all of them are appealed. I think what he's getting at is he's going to have a good appeal with all the mistakes made, if it's not won, at least by getting a new trial, something it up with that.
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 8, 2005 16:20:32 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? I do agree that it is an appelate lawyers dream, as I stated in earlier post. I just didn't/don't remember the Judge saying it. Especially releasing the one juror that was holding out on a guilt verdict and thus was dismissed a day before the guilty verdict came down. There are news articles up. I'll see if I can locate them and post links in case your interested.
|
|
|
Post by shadez on Aug 8, 2005 16:24:36 GMT -5
I do agree that it is an appelate lawyers dream, as I stated in earlier post. I just didn't/don't remember the Judge saying it. Especially releasing the one juror that was holding out on a guilt verdict and thus was dismissed a day before the guilty verdict came down. There are news articles up. I'll see if I can locate them and post links in case your interested. Yes would be interesting, thanks
|
|
AW2B
Doin' Time
Posts: 71
|
Post by AW2B on Aug 8, 2005 16:25:13 GMT -5
The judge?? LMAO! He called his own trial an "Appellate Lawyers Petri Dish"....... in my own interpretation of that sentance... it means he knew the trial was going to be appealed. any judge in their right mind would know a trial like this would be appealed. first of all, it was very high-profile. second of all, 90% of cases like this go into appellate court. on a side note, if i had to lay down some money, id say they get they will get the conviction again. But he used the term "petri dish"..he was not just referring to the fact that the case will be appealed..he was referring to the extent of the appellate issues the attorney will use in his appeal.....big difference..!
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 8, 2005 16:25:40 GMT -5
|
|
Ohpal
Settlin' In
Posts: 11
|
Post by Ohpal on Aug 8, 2005 16:33:10 GMT -5
But he used the term "petri dish"..he was not just referring to the fact that the case will be appealed..he was referring to the extent of the appellate issues the attorney will use in his appeal.....big difference..! This may be true, mistakes were made on both sides. The fact is, however, Scott will never be able to undo what he's done. His actions/behavior after Lacy went missing were damning....at this point, he has only himself to blame.
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 8, 2005 16:38:01 GMT -5
But he used the term "petri dish"..he was not just referring to the fact that the case will be appealed..he was referring to the extent of the appellate issues the attorney will use in his appeal.....big difference..! This may be true, mistakes were made on both sides. The fact is, however, Scott will never be able to undo what he's done. His actions/behavior after Lacy went missing were damning....at this point, he has only himself to blame. His behavior wasn't proof of guilt. It convinced me, but it wasn't proof. We're talking about the death penalty. We're going to convict someone for death because they behave badly? Man, we better line 'em up, because I have an ex that compares to they way Scott behaves. My ex is a liar and a cheat. I hope he doesn't know anyone who was murdered, because he could get convicted of murdering that person because he's a liar and a cheat. (edited due to disrespectful).
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 8, 2005 16:42:57 GMT -5
I kwow I call Scott some inappropriate names. I'll go back and edit. Sorry y'all. If I miss any, pm me the links . hugggz, Suzanne
|
|
Ohpal
Settlin' In
Posts: 11
|
Post by Ohpal on Aug 8, 2005 16:45:13 GMT -5
His behavior wasn't proof of guilt. It convinced me, but it wasn't proof. We're talking about the death penalty. We're going to convict someone for death because they behave badly? By behavior and actions I meant his eluding police, his charging his appearance dramatically, his failure to be active in the search of his precious wife, and his ambovilent attitude. "Behaving badly" is one thing, acting the part of the murderous husband is quite another.... and I think Scott played that part beautifully.
|
|
AW2B
Doin' Time
Posts: 71
|
Post by AW2B on Aug 8, 2005 16:46:32 GMT -5
But he used the term "petri dish"..he was not just referring to the fact that the case will be appealed..he was referring to the extent of the appellate issues the attorney will use in his appeal.....big difference..! This may be true, mistakes were made on both sides. The fact is, however, Scott will never be able to undo what he's done. His actions/behavior after Lacy went missing were damning....at this point, he has only himself to blame. What do you mean by mistakes were made on both sides? I disagree, Scott was very cooperative, I can only blame the MPD's tunnel vision...and the media poor invetigation of the facts..they published everything the MPD leaked to them without conducting their own investigation.. Examples: The house smelled like bleach..proven in the court of law to be false Scott refused to let the police search his home without a warrant...proven in the court of law to be false.. Scott recently purchased an insurance policy on Laci..proven in the court of law to be false... Scott didn't give them the Marina receipt ..the police found it in their search...proven in the court of law to be false.. They found blood and vomit on a mop..proven in the court of law to be false.. etc.. Those FALSE reports led the public to believe Scott was guilty...
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Aug 8, 2005 16:50:06 GMT -5
His behavior wasn't proof of guilt. It convinced me, but it wasn't proof. We're talking about the death penalty. We're going to convict someone for death because they behave badly? By behavior and actions I meant his eluding police, his charging his appearance dramatically, his failure to be active in the search of his precious wife, and his ambovilent attitude. "Behaving badly" is one thing, acting the part of the murderous husband is quite another.... and I think Scott played that part beautifully. Eluding the police? How do you know that? He was followed all the time by media. How do you know he wasn't trying to hide from them? Plus, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't he in the area of his family? I don't know if I got that part right. If so, than he wasn't hiding too well from the police who would surely be able to find him there. And the articles on his person or in his car doesn't prove a damn thing......read the transcript on that part and you'll see what I mean.
|
|
Ohpal
Settlin' In
Posts: 11
|
Post by Ohpal on Aug 8, 2005 16:52:36 GMT -5
All of what you said may be true, but the media wasn't on the jury, neither was the general public. Altho, yes, the jury is meant to represent John Q Public, they did not have access to the media during the trial.
Simple fact, Scott was convicted of murder by a jury of his peers.
|
|