|
Post by Maggie on Jul 17, 2006 16:24:09 GMT -5
I tried to make a credit card donation and it keeps saying: "Unable to verify card". I use this card online all the time. Has anyone else donated recently and had this problem? Are you trying to use PayPal on the family website?
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jul 17, 2006 17:00:17 GMT -5
Art, I got the feeling you were a leagle eagle What I have never understood about this case since the beginning-- is the non-stop demonization of Scott Peterson in the media! And the seemingly hefty investment so many (in power) seem to have in his guilt. Do you remember when Sharon Rocha was pushing the "Laci Bill" (the one Laci herself would not have qualified under)? By that time, she had made it known to the public that she was convinced Scott was guilty. Then we have our PRESIDENT..... Bush >:(getting all cozy with her on TV, before Scott even had a trial!! I felt like our own president was sending a message that Scott is guilty. A TV movie was made for cripes sake!! Look at all the books. Yet, when one really looks at the evidence, and lack of evidence.... and really digs into the case, a story emerges of an innocent man totally railroaded. It's sickening. It shows the power of the media exceeds the power of the courts by a wide margin. Look at cases like that of William Heirens, David Dowaliby and the like. When the media pressure exceeds a certain point the temptation to railroad someone, anyone becomes too great. Where is the outrage against Gilbert Cano? Against Georgia's "Black Widow," Lynn Turner who allegedly killed her husband Glenn Turner, a Cobb County police officer, and then did the same to her boyfriend Randy Thompson, a Forsyth County firefighter? Where does the responsibility lie for what happened to Peterson? Did the DA's violate their oaths?
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jul 17, 2006 17:03:42 GMT -5
... Once Scott gets out he should sue the state, the county, Geragos & Geragos... He deserves millions in compensation for the way this case was mishandled. I still cannot fathom why Geragos spent so much time on the single hair found in the boat. He made it seem more important than it was. Meanwhile he let the grass clipping evidence go by - physical evidence that strongly suggests Laci walked the dog in the park after Servas returned him. How could he do that?
|
|
|
Post by artguy on Jul 17, 2006 17:09:04 GMT -5
I am running late for an appointment so I only had time to put together a first draft of the letter. Please everyone feel free to edit this. I'll start gathering the email and mail addresses as soon as I can.
____________________
Date
RE: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT LEE PETERSON, et al., Defendant Case No. SC55500 (Stan. Co. 1056770)
Dear __________
I am writing you as a taxpaying voting citizen of the United States of America regarding a matter of the highest urgency.
Upon reviewing the evidence and trial transcript in the above entitled case, it has become apparent to me that the investigation and subsequent trial were conducted in a manner that deprived Mr. Peterson of his constitutional right to an impartial trial. Furthermore Mr. Peterson’s lawyers, namely Geragos & Geragos did not provide effective council for the defendant during the trial in that they overlooked key eyewitness evidence which would have proven well beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Peterson could not have possibly committed the crime.
Furthermore, Mr. Peterson was clearly the victim of jury nullification enacted by the media and their peers, as evidenced in part by the high number of jurors who were dismissed during deliberations; and facilitated by ineffective council and numerous willful and unlawful acts of misconduct on the part of the investigators and prosecutors.
Mr. Peterson has been incarcerated since his arrest on April 18th. 2002 and is currently in the custody of the Warden of the State Prison of San Quentin, California, where he is awaiting appeal.
Because of the numerous improprieties and illegal manner in which this investigation, arrest, trial, conviction and sentencing was conducted, I demand that you exercise all powers at your disposal to effect the immediate release of Mr. Peterson pending a thorough investigation.
Signed,
|
|
|
Post by artguy on Jul 17, 2006 17:10:04 GMT -5
Maggie - No, I used my Master Card. It kept saying: "unable to verify". I use this card all the time online. I don't have Paypal. I can't donate a lot right now but every bit helps. :-)
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Jul 17, 2006 17:22:45 GMT -5
Art, Is jury nullification an appeal issue.... it's legal isn't it? Maybe I don't understand it?? I LOVE the letter!! Let us know the best way to proceed ;D ps- you can always donate to the Peterson's PO Box... but also keep in mind, there are many ways to contribute-
|
|
|
Post by artguy on Jul 17, 2006 17:33:35 GMT -5
Maggie - Jury nullification is a jury’s refusal to render a verdict according to the law, as instructed by the court, regardless of the weight of evidence presented. Instead, a jury bases its verdict on other grounds. It's contradictory to juror instruction and definitely grounds for appeal. But I'm not even talking appeal. That's not good enough given the illegal manner in which this entire investigation and trial played out. We need a writ demanding a hearing to have Scott released immediately. It's going to take a lot of work and a lot of letters. We need as many people as possible!
Now I am really late!
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jul 17, 2006 17:38:38 GMT -5
I am writing you as a taxpaying & voting citizen of the United States of America regarding a matter of the highest urgency.
Upon reviewing the evidence and trial transcript in the above entitled case, it has become apparent to me that the investigation and subsequent trial were conducted in a manner that deprived Mr. Peterson of his constitutional right to an impartial trial. Furthermore Mr. Peterson’s lawyers, namely Geragos & Geragos did not provide effective council counsel for the defendant during the trial in that they overlooked key eyewitness evidence which would have proven well beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Peterson could not have possibly committed the crime.
Furthermore, Mr. Peterson was clearly the victim of jury nullification enacted created by the media as evidenced in part by the high number of jurors who were dismissed during deliberations; and facilitated by ineffective council counsel and numerous willful and unlawful acts of misconduct on the part of the investigators and prosecutors.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jul 17, 2006 17:49:18 GMT -5
www.modbee.com/local/story/6992046p-7926160c.htmlPublished: June 20, 2003, 11:05:48 AM PDT
Modesto Mayor Carmen Sabatino said this week that he did not detect "much grief" from Scott Peterson when the two met 10 days after Peterson's pregnant wife, Laci, was reported missing. Sabatino said Peterson showed "anxiety" when they met for about 25 minutes at Starbucks Coffee near Tenth Street Place on Jan. 3.
. . .
Recalling his chat with Peterson, Sabatino said: "I guess I was impressed that there wasn't much grief."
But Sabatino said Peterson told him that evenings and mornings were difficult compared to daytime hours, when he busied himself with efforts to find his wife.
Later that day, Sabatino summarized the meeting in a one-page report to Police Chief Roy Wasden. The Bee obtained a copy of the memo this week; Sabatino's signature does not appear on The Bee's copy, but the mayor confirmed that he wrote it.
The mayor was under criminal investigation at that time, and still is. He said he was not asked to write the memo, but volunteered the information "in case anybody ever questioned me about it."
"At no time did I ask, nor did (Peterson) volunteer, his activities on Dec. 24," Sabatino wrote, referring to the day that Laci Peterson's family reported her missing from her Modesto home.
. .
Sabatino said he ran into Peterson at the volunteer search headquarters in the days following his wife's disappearance. Peterson asked if they could meet privately, Sabatino said, and the mayor agreed.
"(Police) kept telling me he wasn't a suspect," Sabatino said this week.
He said Peterson thanked him for the city's efforts to find his wife. He praised "the community" for staging the candlelight vigil, and he praised Wasden, according to Sabatino.
. .
Sabatino said he and Peterson have not spoken since.And now, as if by magic, Fladager decides not to prosecute Sabatino. Hmmm. Nothing suspicious there!
|
|
dove
Settlin' In
Posts: 46
|
Post by dove on Jul 17, 2006 18:58:05 GMT -5
If the MPD had gone after Ron Grantski they could have made at least as good a case as they did against Scott Peterson - perhaps better. Speaking of Ron, why wasn't anybody wondering why he couldn't drive that day? I read somewhere that Sharon said, "Ron can't drive" this was right before she went to look for Lacy. Why couldn't he drive? Had he been drinking, or does he not drive? If he'd been drinking, why had he been drinking that much by 5pm? Artguy, that's a great letter!!!
|
|
dove
Settlin' In
Posts: 46
|
Post by dove on Jul 17, 2006 19:25:08 GMT -5
Something i'm wondering about is why did Ron tell the operator that Scott had gone golfing and the last time anyone saw Lacy was at 9:30am. In Sharon's testimony she says nothing about Scott telling her all those things. If Scott had talked to her about him going fishing and the last time he saw her, and that she was walking the dog that would have all come out in these questions don't you think? But nothing was said about any of it. So how did Ron know all this and tell the 911 operator? How does he know Lacy took the dog for a walk, and where? I also think it's very suspicious that he says he can't remember his daugthers address, especially since they'd just been over there for dinner 8 days before. Even if they hadn't been there 8 days before, how couldn't he know her address? ?? How long had Scott and Lacy been living in that house? [glow=red,2,300]Ron Grantsky 911 call[/glow] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: One to dispatch.
OPERATOR: Hi, can I help you?
RON GRANTSKI, STEPFATHER OF LACI PETERSON: Yes. My son-in-law called. He'd been playing golf this morning. He left at 9:30. My daughter has been missing since this morning. She's eight months pregnant. She took her dog for a walk in the park. The dog came home with just the leash on.
OPERATOR: So the dog came back without your daughter?
GRANTSKI: Right.
OPERATOR: OK, what is your address there sir?
GRANTSKI: Well, I'm at (INFORMATION WITHHELD).
OPERATOR: Is that where she is?
GRANTSKI: No, it's over at Maloma (ph) Park is where she went for the walk. What is Scott and Laci's address? I can't remember.
OPERATOR: What's your telephone number, sir, in case we get disconnected?
GRANTSKI: It's 404 -- Jesus, I can't believe (UNINTELLIGIBLE). (INFORMATION WITHHELD). [glow=red,2,300]Sharon Rocha Testimony[/glow] Q. When is the next time -- or when were you made aware that there was some problem and that Laci was missing?
A. It was about 5:17 PM December 24th when Scott called. He asked if Laci was at our house, and I told him no, and he proceeded to tell me that her car was in the driveway and the dog was there with his leash on and Laci was missing.
Q. Did -- what did you do after hearing that?
A. I told him to call her friends to see if any of them had heard from her or if she was at their house, and I told him to call me back immediately. In the meantime, I ran down the hall and I told Ron that Laci was missing. And then Scott called back. He said that none of her friends had heard from her or talked to her that day, and so I told him to go to the neighbors' to see if she was at a neighbors' house and to call me right back. After that conversation, I started to change my clothes to put warmer clothes on, because I'd already decided that when he called back, if he hadn't found her, that I going over there.
Q. Okay. What was your -- what was your demeanor at that time?
A. I was getting really scared by then. When he said the word "missing," that's what concerned me. It wasn't that she wasn't home or he couldn't find her; he said "missing."
Q. Okay. And do you know about what time that call came in?
A. The first call was about 5:17.
Q. After -- did the defendant then call you back? You told him to call her friends and check around; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And did he then call you back?
A. Yes, he did. And then that's when I told him to check with the neighbors, and then he called back again and said that nobody had seen her; and I went down the hall and I told Ron to call the police, and I called my friend to come and pick me up to take me over to the park. I told him I was going to the park.
Q. Okay. And why did you want to go to the park?
A. Because Scott had said that McKenzie had his leash on.
|
|
dove
Settlin' In
Posts: 46
|
Post by dove on Jul 17, 2006 20:03:31 GMT -5
This also seems really FISHY
[glow=red,2,300]Ron Grantski questioned Scott [/glow]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evers said that he and Scott were standing out in front of the Covena home when Ron came up to them and identified himself as Laci's stepfather. Ron asked Scott "if he was able to go golf today or golfing today." Scott replied that it was too cold and he went fishing instead. Ron commented, "You mean going -- going fishing 9:30 or 10:00 in the morning. Boy, that's late to go fishing." Evers said he did not remember Scott replying to Ron. Ron apparently didn't tell any of the officers or detectives he, too, had been fishing that afternoon because Brocchini didn't find out about it until Ron testified at the trial 18 months later. Ron later told police that Scott acted standoffish after this encounter, but admitted to Judge Delucchi that it was understandable someone would take offense.
Why was Ron telling Scott it was so late to go fishing when he himself went fishing at about noon that day??? Something doesn't add up here.
One more thing. Does anyone know how long it takes to get from Scotts house to Berklye Marina? I'm wondering how this could happen: James McGritt reported seeing Scott Peterson on the water and dragging something along the side of his boat around 6:30 to 7:00 a.m. off of Emeryville, which is south of the Berkeley Marina. McGritt told his story on KTVU on May 16, 2003.
Then to have someone at Scotts house on they're computer looking at stuff on the internet at 8:40am.
|
|
|
Post by artguy on Jul 18, 2006 8:10:42 GMT -5
After taking a little more time to research nullification, I think this might actually be considered a reverse nullification. I did find California Supreme Court rulings that condemn jury nullification:
Jury nullification is contrary to our ideal of equal justice for all and permits both the prosecution’s case and the defendant’s fate to depend upon the whims of a particular jury, rather than upon the equal application of settled rules of law. As one commentator has noted: “When jurors enter a verdict in contravention of what the law authorizes and requires, they subvert the rule of law and subject citizens–defendants, witnesses, victims, and everyone affected by criminal justice administration– to power based on the subjective predilections of twelve individuals. They affect the rule of men, not law.” (Brown, Jury Nullification Within the Rule of Law, supra, 81 Minn. L.Rev. at pp. 1150-1151, fn. omitted.) A nullifying jury is essentially a lawless jury. [emphasis added]
We reaffirm, therefore, the basic rule that jurors are required to determine the facts and render a verdict in accordance with the court’s instructions on the law. A juror who is unable or unwilling to do so is “unable to perform his [or her] duty” as a juror (§ 1089) and may be discharged. -- People v. Williams (2001) 25 Cal.4th 441, 463.
______________________
Here's the revised letter (Thanks for your help Happy):
Date
RE: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, vs. SCOTT LEE PETERSON, et al., Defendant
Case No. SC55500 (Stan. Co. 1056770)
Dear __________
I am writing you as a taxpaying and voting citizen of the United States of America regarding a matter of the highest urgency.
Upon reviewing the evidence and trial transcript in the above entitled case, it has become apparent to me that the investigation and subsequent trial were conducted in a manner that deprived Mr. Peterson of his constitutional right to an impartial trial. Furthermore Mr. Peterson’s lawyers, namely Geragos & Geragos did not provide effective counsel for the defendant during the trial in that they overlooked key eyewitness evidence which would have proven well beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Peterson could not have possibly committed the crime.
Mr. Peterson was clearly the victim of jury nullification created by the media and their peers, as evidenced in part by the high number of jurors who were dismissed during deliberations; this travesty was facilitated by ineffective counsel and numerous willful and unlawful acts of misconduct on the part of the investigators and prosecutors.
Mr. Peterson has been incarcerated since his arrest on April 18th. 2002 and is currently in the custody of the Warden of the State Prison of San Quentin, California, where he is awaiting appeal.
This case has set an extremely dangerous precedent that poses a serious threat to every US citizen. I now live in fear for my life knowing that a similar fate could be brought upon me or my family. As long as Mr. Peterson remains incarcerated, no US citizen is truly free.
Because of the numerous improprieties and illegal manner in which this investigation, arrest, trial, conviction and sentencing was conducted, I respectfully request that you exercise all powers at your disposal to effect the immediate release of Mr. Peterson pending a thorough investigation and hearing.
Signed,
____________
Everyone please continue to edit the letter. I’m going to start rounding up all the contact information for the people to send it to.
|
|
|
Post by artguy on Jul 18, 2006 9:07:55 GMT -5
Contact InformationGovernor of California: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-445-2841 Fax: 916-445-4633 Online Form: www.govmail.ca.govCalifornia Attorney General's Office California Department of Justice Attn: Public Inquiry Unit P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 US Attorney General Email: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 ACLU Northern California: Executive Director: Dorothy M. Ehrlich 1663 Mission Street, Suite 460 San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone: 415-621-2493 The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW; Washington, DC 20503 202-456-1414 Fax: 202-456-2461 president@whitehouse.gov Senator Jackie Speier San Mateo Office 400 S. El Camino Real Suite 630; San Mateo, CA 94402 650-340-8840 Fax: 650-340-1661 California Supreme Court Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Attn: (Send 1 letter to each) Ronald M. George, Chief Justice Marvin R. Baxter, Associate Justice Ming W. Chin, Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan, Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard, Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Associate Justice US Supreme Court Supreme Court of the United States One First Street N.E. Washington, DC 20543 Attn: (Send 1 letter to each) John G. Roberts, Chief Justice John Paul Stevens Samuel A. Alito, Jr Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy David Souter Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer MediaCNN/Larry King www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?12Oprah Online Form: www.oprah.com/email/reach/email_reach_fromu.jhtmlMontel Williams: MONTEL 433 West 53 Street New York, NY 10019 fax #: (212) 262-4602 Geraldo Rivera Email: comments@geraldoatlarge.com Online form
|
|
dove
Settlin' In
Posts: 46
|
Post by dove on Jul 18, 2006 9:23:02 GMT -5
Because of the numerous improprieties and illegal manner in which this investigation, arrest, trial, conviction and sentencing was conducted, I respectfully request that you exercise all powers at your disposal to effect the immediate release of Mr. Peterson pending a thorough investigation and hearing. Signed, ____________ Everyone please continue to edit the letter. I’m going to start rounding up all the contact information for the people to send it to. Artguy, are you going to include examples or proof of the improprieties and illegal manner of the investigation in your letter? I"m not sure if you need it in this letter but it might be an idea, what do you think?
|
|