Do you ever get lonesome for the Good Old Days at CourtTV?
Do you miss the pro-Scott posters on the Never-Ending Thread?
Go to Lee Peterson's blog and read the comments.
I guess Sharon Rocha's lawsuit has done gone and riled up Lee, and all the SII gang is coming out of the woodwork in support of A Father's Pain.
There's a "Donate" button, if you're so inclined.
(tongue firmly planted in cheek)
Where are those GnarlyBucks when you need them?
i would rather donate to the devil
ReplyDeleteThis A-hole has completely sanitised the comments on the blog. What? Only Scott supporters have commented? Never, not in a million years!
ReplyDeleteI think I said this somewhere else, but it must have gone into cyberspace.
How was you day, Ronni? Did you manage to enjoy it?
I didn't try to comment. That case was hard-fought at the time. Now, Lee is just drivelling.
ReplyDeleteI had enough of it back in the day.
I just hope this whole lawsuit doesnt backfire. Seeing as the case is a purely circumstantial, if they dont win, I am afraid that it will really boost his appeal.
ReplyDeleteIt makes no sense at all either, SP has no money or assets. His inheritance is no longer in his name. Its illegal to do books or movie deals if you are convicted in California.
So basically the Rocha's are taking a huge gamble. If they lose they very well could be the stepping stone of getting him out on appeal.
Ah, but the Petersons will be trying to raise money for an appeal.
ReplyDeleteThe appeal will center on things like problems with the jury, incompetence of counsel, etc. I can't see the issues in this case being all that important to an appeal.
Most evidence in most cases is "circumstantial." We have become spoiled with shows like CSI, in which DNA plays a huge part in almost any conviction. However, except for that and eyewitness testimony (itself, notoriously unreliable), almost any other evidence is considered circumstantial.
Police used to solve cases using logic, scientific principles, and sheer dogged determination. Now, all of a sudden that is suspect, referred to as "only" circumstantial evidence. In former generations, that was all they had. The thing about a circumstantial case is that all the bits have to be connected, and, while each bit can be refuted on its own, the totality adds up to guilt.
The Petersons can't see the forest for the trees. The jury could. the appellate court will be able to, as well.
Contrary to the Petersons' assertion that Scott was convicted in "the court of public opinion," public opinion was squarely in favour of the defense throughout most of the investigation and trial. It wasn't until the Amber tapes came in, and the pundits juxtaposed the image of Scott at the memorial with what he was actually saying to Amber at that time that public opinion actually started to shift in favour of the prosecution.
I followed that trial like no other, and, while I have forgotten a lot of what went on, and a lot of the finer points, I do remember that.
If Scott could sell his story to raise money for an appellate lawyer, he would do so. He needs the money. He doesn't deserve the money. The lawsuit will prevent his getting money.
I like it.
He already has an attorney, the appeal is going to be in 2009 sometime, and his parents I assume are paying for it and not him.
ReplyDeleteAnd I believe they are focusing on all the stuff thats on that crazy website.
Still, if he can pay the shyster without bankrupting his family, he will do it.
ReplyDeleteHis parents may be focusing on all that stuff, but the appellate court is going to focus on what, if any, mistakes were made in the investigation and trial.
The SII crowd is clutching at straws, IMO.
Reading Lee's story and the comments from Snott's supporters literally made me sick to my stomach. Talk about denial!
ReplyDeleteThe comments are moderated. No wonder there are only 13 to date, and all pro-Snott.
There are 111 on the entry below (when I read it), the one purportedly written by Scott himself.
ReplyDeleteMarlene has a blog I hadn't seen:
http://pwc-consulting.blogspot.com/
Looks as if they are gearing up to fight.
Good points about "only circumstantial" evidence, Ronni. People overuse and misuse that term so much. People usually do not realize that circumstantial evidence is any evidence that isn't "direct evidence." Direct evidence is pretty much only eyewitness testimony, which can be extremely unreliable. Fingerprints are "only circumstantial" evidence, as is DNA and blood evidence. If a person didn't see it happen and can directly testify to what they saw, it is "indirect" or "circumstantial" evidence. With good police work cirmcustantial evidence can make for a great prosecution case. As you well know!
ReplyDeleteDarr, Marilee Strong has written a book called "Erased: Missing Women, Murdered Wives" that chronicles this type of killing. Very interesting read.
ReplyDeleteThere's too much of it about, these days.
Ha! I just got that book out of the library and was telling Loretta that I was really looking forward to reading it.
ReplyDeleteI think Lee is in serious denial and might also have the attitude that, "I paid that much for a defense, he should have walked, damnnit!"
I also think he's forgotten the fact that the appeal is not a retrial, it's a formal procedure to insure that the verdict was sound. All death row inmates get one, so it's not as if some new evidence turned up that exonerates Scott. That would be a whole different ball of wax.
Scott is right where he's going to stay. Hell, I bet he outlives some of us.
If he'd got Life, and were in the general population, he wouldn't!
ReplyDeleteIt's a great book!