on line petition to free scott peterson

on line petition to free scott peterson

First Prev
of 14
Next Last
Nancy

Belleville, MI

#3 Oct 10, 2007
Bruce wrote:
http://www.ipetitions.com/peti tion/perkydelic/
PLEASE SIGN
You will never get enough signatures, here or anywhere, to get Scott out of jail.
ali

AOL

#7 Oct 31, 2007
Maybe not, but his lawyers will get him out on his appeal. Just wait and see who has the last laugh Nancy.

Since: Oct 07

Dallas, TX

#8 Oct 31, 2007
I have been doing a lot reading on the case. I have read all the media stories, I have read the transcripts. I watched Greta the last few nights and I'm wondering, why was her report only one sided?
Chirst, what the H**l did you really expect that juror to say other than "yes he got a fair trial."
No he didn't. Beth reported on at least two different occasions about the juror who kept falling asleep during testimony.
Jurors are NOT suppose to discuss the case among themselves, they are NOT suppose to watch the news, they are NOT suppose to discuss it with their family and friends, and yet this man can recall the testimony he slept through?
Bullsh*t.
The judge should have declared a mistrial as soon as the jurors started to rock the boat and mime throwing a body over the side.
Nancy

Belleville, MI

#11 Nov 1, 2007
ali wrote:
Maybe not, but his lawyers will get him out on his appeal. Just wait and see who has the last laugh Nancy.
I'll be glad to wait......cause it ain't gonna happen.
Pecker

Tsuen Wan, Hong Kong

#12 Nov 1, 2007
Nancy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll be glad to wait......cause it ain't gonna happen.
Isn't that ironic.
I've been sayin' the SAME thing about your pal FLoser, Nance.
bob

United States

#13 Nov 4, 2007
may god have mercy on him. i think the evidence is clear. guilty
peacejoy

Denver, CO

#15 Nov 5, 2007
ali wrote:
Maybe not, but his lawyers will get him out on his appeal. Just wait and see who has the last laugh Nancy.
All SP could do is get another trial, he can't just get out. That's not how it works, best case sceniro is he gets a new trial, and he would be found guilty again. The only way he would ever get out is if another person came forward and said they did it, and showed proof that they did do it. SP is never getting out, he shouldn't get out, he killed his wife, he is where he belongs. So that is the end of it. He did what he did, now he has to pay for it!
Bev

AOL

#16 Nov 12, 2007
ali wrote:
Maybe not, but his lawyers will get him out on his appeal. Just wait and see who has the last laugh Nancy.
Hold your breath
Bev

AOL

#17 Nov 12, 2007
Ladybug80 wrote:
I have been doing a lot reading on the case. I have read all the media stories, I have read the transcripts. I watched Greta the last few nights and I'm wondering, why was her report only one sided?
Chirst, what the H**l did you really expect that juror to say other than "yes he got a fair trial."
No he didn't. Beth reported on at least two different occasions about the juror who kept falling asleep during testimony.
Jurors are NOT suppose to discuss the case among themselves, they are NOT suppose to watch the news, they are NOT suppose to discuss it with their family and friends, and yet this man can recall the testimony he slept through?
Bullsh*t.
The judge should have declared a mistrial as soon as the jurors started to rock the boat and mime throwing a body over the side.
Do you have a link to a juror falling asleep? I watched the trial on a daily basis and do not remember that happening
Bev

AOL

#18 Nov 12, 2007
Ladybug80 wrote:
I have been doing a lot reading on the case. I have read all the media stories, I have read the transcripts. I watched Greta the last few nights and I'm wondering, why was her report only one sided?
Chirst, what the H**l did you really expect that juror to say other than "yes he got a fair trial."
No he didn't. Beth reported on at least two different occasions about the juror who kept falling asleep during testimony.
Jurors are NOT suppose to discuss the case among themselves, they are NOT suppose to watch the news, they are NOT suppose to discuss it with their family and friends, and yet this man can recall the testimony he slept through?
Bullsh*t.
The judge should have declared a mistrial as soon as the jurors started to rock the boat and mime throwing a body over the side.
Please get your facts straight. NOWHERE was it claimed that they mimed throwing a body over teh side.

You do NOT know anything about this case whatsoever.
Bev

AOL

#21 Nov 12, 2007
Princess wrote:
<quoted text>
Beth reported it about on CTV. Obviously you didn't watch CTV.
No, I got my information from the transcrips and even GERAGOS did not try to claim that the jurors "mimed" throwing a body out of the boat. In fact, the only standing juror was Jackson. The others were sitting on kneeling. So Jackson (Geragos's sole hope for a mistrial) could have been the only one "miming" throwing a body off the boat. Read Geragos's motion for a new trial. He says "rocking" the boat, not "throwing something off of it. I HAVE read the transcripts; you, obviously have not. Stop filling the board with your lies and innuendos, You sound familiar. Did you also come up with the red boot scenario - another lie.
shelli

Phoenix, AZ

#22 Nov 14, 2007
Bev wrote:
<quoted text> Please get your facts straight. NOWHERE was it claimed that they mimed throwing a body over teh side.
You do NOT know anything about this case whatsoever.
Actually, they do mention a boat and a made up body in it, That was scott peterson's lawyer who did it, so why would they have a mistrial for that? They also mention a demonstration of someone who went out on a boat, with weights attached to see if you could push someone over without tipping that kind of boat, and he fell in and they weights started to pull him down, and they had to jump in and save him. Don't remember which side did that skit...
Bev

AOL

#23 Nov 16, 2007
shelli wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, they do mention a boat and a made up body in it, That was scott peterson's lawyer who did it, so why would they have a mistrial for that? They also mention a demonstration of someone who went out on a boat, with weights attached to see if you could push someone over without tipping that kind of boat, and he fell in and they weights started to pull him down, and they had to jump in and save him. Don't remember which side did that skit...
The defense did that. That is why he owned that boat. When the boat tipped, the engine was ruined and the people who loaned MG the boat made him BUY it. That man standing in the boat was also TRYING to capsize the boat. Also, the water in that video was choppy; the Harbormaster at Berkeley said the Bay was "like glass" that day.
Bev

AOL

#24 Nov 16, 2007
Mark Geragos: I did. I wanted, for the record, since there wasn't a court reporter, it's been my position, I have no opposition to them viewing boat, which they did. I do have strenuous and vigorous opposition to the Court allowing jurors to get into the boat start rocking around in the boat. That's exactly what they did. A number of the jurors got into the boat. Number of the jurors started to rock back and forth in the boat. The boat is in a trailer. It's not on the water. The Court excluded my demonstration on the water, which I would tell you was a lot closer to what the prosecution theory was than having a boat on a trailer in the parking lot allowing somebody to get in and start to go back and forth

NOWHERE DOES GERAGOS CLAIM THAT THEY "MIMED" throwing a body overboard. So try the truth, for a change, Princess
Bev

AOL

#26 Nov 21, 2007
Ladybug80 wrote:
I have been doing a lot reading on the case. I have read all the media stories, I have read the transcripts. I watched Greta the last few nights and I'm wondering, why was her report only one sided?
Chirst, what the H**l did you really expect that juror to say other than "yes he got a fair trial."
No he didn't. Beth reported on at least two different occasions about the juror who kept falling asleep during testimony.
Jurors are NOT suppose to discuss the case among themselves, they are NOT suppose to watch the news, they are NOT suppose to discuss it with their family and friends, and yet this man can recall the testimony he slept through?
Bullsh*t.
The judge should have declared a mistrial as soon as the jurors started to rock the boat and mime throwing a body over the side.
The only juror watching the news and talking about the case was Justin Falconer who was dismissed for that. No one else violated that order except Gregory Jackson when he attempted to engage jurors in discussion on hte bus. Don't forget, it was Geragos's personal favorite, Gregary Jackson who was rocking the boaT AND ONLY YOU SAY THEY WERE MIMING THROWING A BODY OVER THEE SIDE. Were you there? Did you see it? I don't think so and there was nothing in Geragos's motion for a retrial that said ANYONE was miming throwing a body over the side. Not to mention that Jackson was the only juror standing so it would have had to be him doing it. He was dismissed from the jury so it's a moot point. An appeal will never be granted on that issue. More graspint at straws. How come you aren't mentionign Amber's red boots sitting by the front door of Laci's house? More fiction from Scott supporters.
Parker

Pittsburgh, PA

#27 Nov 21, 2007
No, Justin Falconer never watched the news. His girlfriend did and she only told him what Nasty Nancy Grace was saying about him. All he did was tell the other's what happened when he was accused of talking to Laci's brother.
Tabitha

Houston, TX

#28 Nov 21, 2007
Parker wrote:
No, Justin Falconer never watched the news. His girlfriend did and she only told him what Nasty Nancy Grace was saying about him. All he did was tell the other's what happened when he was accused of talking to Laci's brother.
Parker, he also said what his girlfriend had told him about Nancy Grace. I agree with you 100%. He never watched the news.
Bev

AOL

#30 Nov 23, 2007
Parker wrote:
No, Justin Falconer never watched the news. His girlfriend did and she only told him what Nasty Nancy Grace was saying about him. All he did was tell the other's what happened when he was accused of talking to Laci's brother.
Judtin ADMITTED discussing hte case with his girl friend and THAT was against instructoins.
Trudy

Scarborough, Canada

#31 Nov 24, 2007
The Court: Have you ever heard juror number 5, at least while you were in there, make any comments about the evidence in this case?
Juror 2: About the evidence?
The Court: For example, have you ever heard him say anything about the anchor which was marked into evidence yesterday?
Juror 2: No. Didn't hear any of that.
The Court: Okay. Have you heard any comments about Detective Brocchini's testimony by juror number 5?
Juror 2: No.
The Court: Have you heard any comment about Laci Peterson's weight during her pregnancy?
Juror 2: No.
The Court: Have you heard any comments on the Modesto Police Department reports by officers regarding their inconsistencies?
Juror 2: No.
The Court: Have you heard any comments about the prosecution and their deficiencies as lawyers to present this case?
Juror 2: From juror number 5?
The Court: Yeah.
Juror 2: I don't think specifically.
The Court: Have other jurors commented?
Juror 2: I think I heard something....(the judge interrupted this juror when he was about to mention comments made by other jurors)
The Court: Okay. Did you ever hear juror number 5 say anything about him watching TV and watching TV reports about this trial? Did he ever say that in your presence?
Juror 2: Him -- himself watching?... No.
The Court: Okay. Now, we received a report that juror number 5 in the jury room speaks about the facts and issues in this case. For example, there is a report that yesterday he commented about the anchor which was marked into evidence yesterday. Have you heard him make any comments about the anchor yesterday?
Juror 7: Yes, there was some conversation in the room about wishing that we had been able to handle the anchor, because there was maybe some interest in knowing how heavy it was.
The Court: Okay. Who made that comment? Was that juror number 5 or
6? Do you know?...
Juror 7: You know, I can't recall who said it first. There were several people that expressed an interest in the weight of it, the size of it. But I -- I can't tell you who said it first. I'm sorry.
The Court: Okay. Did you hear whether or not juror number 5 made any comments on Detective Brocchini's testimony? Did he make any comments about that?...
Juror 7: No.
The Court: Okay.... Have you heard him make any comments about Laci Peterson's weight during her pregnancy?
Juror 7: No.
The Court: Have you heard him make any comments about the Modesto Police Department reports?
Juror 7: No.
The Court: Any comments about the prosecution and the manner in which they're presenting this case?
Juror 7: No.
The Court: Any comments about him watching TV or talking to his girlfriend about TV reports?
Juror 7: Watching TV?
The Court: Court TV.
Juror 7: No.
The Court: Okay. Have you heard him say anything about this case in your presence?
Juror 7: I think the only thing I remember is what I heard yesterday about the anchor....
The Court: Have you ever heard any other juror in your presence admonish
juror number 5 not to be talking about the facts and issues in this case?
Juror 7: Well, I mean I have heard on occasion there would be maybe some conversation in the room and someone would go "Shh," and everybody would stop.
The Court: Okay. Was 5 among them that was making these comments? If you know.
Juror 7: I'm sorry, I -- I don't know
Other jurors were heard talking about the case etc. etc., so why weren't they dismissed along with Justin.
Bev

AOL

#32 Nov 25, 2007
Trudy wrote:
The Court: Have you ever heard juror number 5, at least while you were in there, make any comments about the evidence in this case?
Juror 2: About the evidence?
The Court: For example, have you ever heard him say anything about the anchor which was marked into evidence yesterday?
Juror 2: No. Didn't hear any of that.
The Court: Okay. Have you heard any comments about Detective Brocchini's testimony by juror number 5?
Juror 2: No.
The Court: Have you heard any comment about Laci Peterson's weight during her pregnancy?
Juror 2: No.
The Court: Have you heard any comments on the Modesto Police Department reports by officers regarding their inconsistencies?
Juror 2: No.
The Court: Have you heard any comments about the prosecution and their deficiencies as lawyers to present this case?
Juror 2: From juror number 5?
The Court: Yeah.
Juror 2: I don't think specifically.
The Court: Have other jurors commented?
Juror 2: I think I heard something....(the judge interrupted this juror when he was about to mention comments made by other jurors)
The Court: Okay. Did you ever hear juror number 5 say anything about him watching TV and watching TV reports about this trial? Did he ever say that in your presence?
Juror 2: Him -- himself watching?... No.
The Court: Okay. Now, we received a report that juror number 5 in the jury room speaks about the facts and issues in this case. For example, there is a report that yesterday he commented about the anchor which was marked into evidence yesterday. Have you heard him make any comments about the anchor yesterday?
Juror 7: Yes, there was some conversation in the room about wishing that we had been able to handle the anchor, because there was maybe some interest in knowing how heavy it was.
The Court: Okay. Who made that comment? Was that juror number 5 or
6? Do you know?...
Juror 7: You know, I can't recall who said it first. There were several people that expressed an interest in the weight of it, the size of it. But I -- I can't tell you who said it first. I'm sorry.
The Court: Okay. Did you hear whether or not juror number 5 made any comments on Detective Brocchini's testimony? Did he make any comments about that?...
Juror 7: No.
The Court: Okay.... Have you heard him make any comments about Laci Peterson's weight during her pregnancy?
Juror 7: No.
The Court: Have you heard him make any comments about the Modesto Police Department reports?
Juror 7: No.
The Court: Any comments about the prosecution and the manner in which they're presenting this case?
Juror 7: No.
The Court: Any comments about him watching TV or talking to his girlfriend about TV reports?
Juror 7: Watching TV?
The Court: Court TV.
Juror 7: No.
The Court: Okay. Have you heard him say anything about this case in your presence?
Juror 7: I think the only thing I remember is what I heard yesterday about the anchor....
The Court: Have you ever heard any other juror in your presence admonish
juror number 5 not to be talking about the facts and issues in this case?
Juror 7: Well, I mean I have heard on occasion there would be maybe some conversation in the room and someone would go "Shh," and everybody would stop.
The Court: Okay. Was 5 among them that was making these comments? If you know.
Juror 7: I'm sorry, I -- I don't know
Other jurors were heard talking about the case etc. etc., so why weren't they dismissed along with Justin.
Very good, Now can you post what the other TEN jurors said about him? This is ONE juror - there were ELEVEN other ones. Justin admitteed talking about the case. That, by itself would didsmiss him since he swore under oath NOT DISCUSS THIS CASE with other people

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 14
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Scott Peterson Trial Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Scott Peterson Applauds Sharon Rocha Over Her N... (Mar '08) Apr 1 Margot55 35
News Suit: Amber Frey broke deal on 'sex addict' book (Mar '11) Dec '15 Derp 4
Who is a sociopath? (Apr '06) Nov '15 Lola 22
Scott Peterson's email address in prison (Oct '07) Sep '15 karen 98
I don't think Scott did this (May '09) Jun '15 dobby 7
News Scott Peterson family asking for donations (Jul '09) Apr '15 tom wingo 64
News Jodi Arias (Jun '13) Mar '15 Jinx 6
More from around the web