|
|
|
Many legal experts have already gone on record and stated that Scott
Petersen will go free when his appeal is heard.
There are several reasons:
Purely circumstantial evidence. With a lack of physical evidence, the
death penalty should not have been imposed.
Juror misconduct. More will be made public about this in the days and
weeks to come. Petersen is almost a lock to get a mistrial once
everything is revealed.
Supressed evidence. Prosecutors successfully supressed the fact that
Laci Peteren contacted the police in 2002 about a mysterious "stalker"
who had followed her home from work on two occasions. This evidence
will not be supressed the second time around.
Jurors being switched during the deliberations phase. The judge didn't
have the guts to call a mistrial, but should have. This will play
heavily in Petersen's favor.
Without a shred of physical evidence, nobody knows for sure if he is
guilty or not. As of now, he has been found guilty, but there is no way
the conviction will hold up during the appeals process.
--
Magnificent Bastard Productions 2004
http://www.magnificentbastardproductions.com
|
| |
| |
This is Off Topic for *any* of the Microsoft News Groups and should not have been posted in
one.
Please refrain from Off Topic posting in the future.
Dave
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:46:37 -0500, in alt.tv.sopranos, David H. Lipman
rubs the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again. It does
this whenever it's told -
This is Off Topic for *any* of the Microsoft News Groups and should not have been posted in
one.
Please refrain from Off Topic posting in the future.
Dave
Sorry. I don't know how all those extra groups got in there.
Maybe it was a problem with my Outlook Express software?
--
Magnificent Bastard Productions 2004
http://www.magnificentbastardproductions.com
|
| |
| |
First day with a computer?
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:46:37 -0500, in alt.tv.sopranos, David H. Lipman
rubs the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again. It does
this whenever it's told -
Sorry. I don't know how all those extra groups got in there.
Maybe it was a problem with my Outlook Express software?
--
Magnificent Bastard Productions 2004
http://www.magnificentbastardproductions.com
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:26:08 GMT, in alt.tv.sopranos, Andrew McSnerkity
rubs the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again. It does
this whenever it's told -
First day with a computer?
Yes. But I already know better than to top-post.
--
Magnificent Bastard Productions 2004
http://www.magnificentbastardproductions.com
|
| |
| |
First day with a computer?
He's merely pointing out a possible defect concerning MS bugware.
Dave||||||
|
| |
| |
Many legal experts have already gone on record and stated that Scott
Petersen will go free when his appeal is heard.
There are several reasons:
Purely circumstantial evidence. With a lack of physical evidence, the
death penalty should not have been imposed.
Juror misconduct. More will be made public about this in the days and
weeks to come. Petersen is almost a lock to get a mistrial once
everything is revealed.
Supressed evidence. Prosecutors successfully supressed the fact that
Laci Peteren contacted the police in 2002 about a mysterious "stalker"
who had followed her home from work on two occasions. This evidence
will not be supressed the second time around.
Jurors being switched during the deliberations phase. The judge didn't
have the guts to call a mistrial, but should have. This will play
heavily in Petersen's favor.
Without a shred of physical evidence, nobody knows for sure if he is
guilty or not. As of now, he has been found guilty, but there is no way
the conviction will hold up during the appeals process.
May justice be served! He was probably convicted by narrow minded people who
can't understand somebody wanting to go fishing alone on Xmas.
doubtful Dave||||||
|
| |
| |
He's merely pointing out a possible defect concerning MS bugware.
Dave||||||
A known and many years-ignored defect in a Micro$oft product? Holy #@($,
stop the presses.
|
| |
| |
he'll fry
|
| |
| |
The Magnificent Bastard wrote:
Many legal experts have already gone on record and stated that Scott
Petersen will go free when his appeal is heard.
There are several reasons:
Purely circumstantial evidence. With a lack of physical evidence, the
death penalty should not have been imposed.
Juror misconduct. More will be made public about this in the days and
weeks to come. Petersen is almost a lock to get a mistrial once
everything is revealed.
Supressed evidence. Prosecutors successfully supressed the fact that
Laci Peteren contacted the police in 2002 about a mysterious "stalker"
who had followed her home from work on two occasions. This evidence
will not be supressed the second time around.
Jurors being switched during the deliberations phase. The judge didn't
have the guts to call a mistrial, but should have. This will play
heavily in Petersen's favor.
Without a shred of physical evidence, nobody knows for sure if he is
guilty or not. As of now, he has been found guilty, but there is no way
the conviction will hold up during the appeals process.
Totally off topic in the crossposted groups which have been trimmed.
The juror replacement during deliberation should never have taken place.
How is a person who may not have heard the entire case know how to pass
judgement fairly?
That alone will most likely free him, and probably be the downfall of the
judge.
Which may also be investigate for possible jury tampering charges.
The so called "stalker" evidence may or may not be related, thusly, it was
not admitted as evidence as nothing conclusive could have been determined.
In short, something similar to hearsay evidence.
The appeals court will look at all evidence, suppressed or not.
Others have been convicted without the evidence of an actual dead body.
That will not persuade the appeals court by any means.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:26:08 GMT, in alt.tv.sopranos, Andrew McSnerkity
rubs the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again. It does
this whenever it's told -
Maybe you should learn how to spell three-letter English pronouns.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:46:39 GMT, in alt.tv.sopranos, Andrew McSnerkity
rubs the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again. It does
this whenever it's told -
Maybe you should learn how to spell three-letter English pronouns.
Really?
--
Magnificent Bastard Productions 2004
http://www.magnificentbastardproductions.com
|
| |
| |
Richard, you magnificent bastard. I read your post:
The Magnificent Bastard wrote:
Totally off topic in the crossposted groups which have been trimmed.
Star Wars?
--
C'Pi
"It's because of men like you that all must be destroyed."
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:46:39 GMT, in alt.tv.sopranos, Andrew McSnerkity
rubs the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again. It does
this whenever it's told -
Really?
Yes, really. And after you learn how to spell three-letter English
pronouns, you may drop to your knees and pleasure me with
your lips and tongue. And trim your fingernails, as I have a
"special job" for "mister forefinger".
|
| |
| |
Richard, you magnificent bastard. I read your post:
Star Wars?
Sure thing. Star wars is/was a constant act of murder and conspiracy right?
|
| |
| |
The juror replacement during deliberation should never have taken place.
How is a person who may not have heard the entire case know how to pass
judgement fairly?
Alternate jurors sit in on the trial with the regular jurors; they just
don't participate in deliberations. When jurors were thrown out, the
original jurors had to begin deliberations from scratch with the new jurors.
|
| |
| |
"Andrew McSnerkity" <abuse@isp.net> wrote:
Yes, really. And after you learn how to spell three-letter English
pronouns, you may drop to your knees and pleasure me with
your lips and tongue. And trim your fingernails, as I have a
"special job" for "mister forefinger".
By far, this is the not-funniest thing I have read all day.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 07:09:07 GMT, in alt.tv.sopranos, Andrew McSnerkity
rubs the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again. It does
this whenever it's told -
Yes, really. And after you learn how to spell three-letter English
pronouns, you may drop to your knees and pleasure me with
your lips and tongue. And trim your fingernails, as I have a
"special job" for "mister forefinger".
Yeah, like *that's* gonna happen.
--
Magnificent Bastard Productions 2004
http://www.magnificentbastardproductions.com
|
| |
| |
You're right to a certain extent. The 9th circuit overturns more DP cases
than it let's through, and many of those had fewer irregularities than this
trial. However, the weight of public opinion, though it shouldn't play a
role, usually does, and this may make the justices rubber stamp the
conviction. Then again, it won't get to appeal for several years, and the
furor will have died down by then.
So I give it a 50% shot that it'll be overturned.. the sentence, that is,
not the verdict. I give the verdict a 10% chance of being overturned and
remanded for retrial based upon the jurors being kicked out.
Here's the deal, though. You say,
Without a shred of physical evidence, nobody knows for sure if he is
guilty or not.
That doesn't really matter, it matters that a reasonable jury could have
found him guilty based upon the evidence presented. If evidence was
improperly excluded by the judge, then that is a valid issue on appeal. But
no appeals court is going to overturn a verdict simply because "nobody knows
for sure if he is guilty." The jury FOUND him guilty, whether they "knew"
he was guilty or not. That's what a fact-FINDER does.
--
Falky
San Diego, Calif.
----------------
Disclaimer: This has been the opinion of a law student, not a lawyer.
Author advises each reader to get the opinion of a legal professional.
This post is not intended to be legal advice.
**** Bottom posting has been rendered obsolete by threaded newsreaders ****
Many legal experts have already gone on record and stated that Scott
Petersen will go free when his appeal is heard.
There are several reasons:
Purely circumstantial evidence. With a lack of physical evidence, the
death penalty should not have been imposed.
Juror misconduct. More will be made public about this in the days and
weeks to come. Petersen is almost a lock to get a mistrial once
everything is revealed.
Supressed evidence. Prosecutors successfully supressed the fact that
Laci Peteren contacted the police in 2002 about a mysterious "stalker"
who had followed her home from work on two occasions. This evidence
will not be supressed the second time around.
Jurors being switched during the deliberations phase. The judge didn't
have the guts to call a mistrial, but should have. This will play
heavily in Petersen's favor.
Without a shred of physical evidence, nobody knows for sure if he is
guilty or not. As of now, he has been found guilty, but there is no way
the conviction will hold up during the appeals process.
--
Magnificent Bastard Productions 2004
http://www.magnificentbastardproductions.com
|
| |
| |
You're right to a certain extent. The 9th circuit overturns more DP cases
than it let's through, and many of those had fewer irregularities than
this
trial. However, the weight of public opinion, though it shouldn't play a
role, usually does, and this may make the justices rubber stamp the
conviction. Then again, it won't get to appeal for several years, and the
furor will have died down by then.
So I give it a 50% shot that it'll be overturned.. the sentence, that is,
not the verdict. I give the verdict a 10% chance of being overturned and
remanded for retrial based upon the jurors being kicked out.
Here's the deal, though. You say,
That doesn't really matter, it matters that a reasonable jury could have
found him guilty based upon the evidence presented. If evidence was
improperly excluded by the judge, then that is a valid issue on appeal.
But
no appeals court is going to overturn a verdict simply because "nobody
knows
for sure if he is guilty." The jury FOUND him guilty, whether they "knew"
he was guilty or not. That's what a fact-FINDER does.
--
Falky
San Diego, Calif.
----------------
Disclaimer: This has been the opinion of a law student, not a lawyer.
Author advises each reader to get the opinion of a legal professional.
This post is not intended to be legal advice.
**** Bottom posting has been rendered obsolete by threaded newsreaders
****
|
| |
| |
You're right to a certain extent. The 9th circuit overturns more DP cases
than it let's through, and many of those had fewer irregularities than
this
trial. However, the weight of public opinion, though it shouldn't play a
role, usually does, and this may make the justices rubber stamp the
conviction. Then again, it won't get to appeal for several years, and the
furor will have died down by then.
So I give it a 50% shot that it'll be overturned.. the sentence, that is,
not the verdict. I give the verdict a 10% chance of being overturned and
remanded for retrial based upon the jurors being kicked out.
Here's the deal, though. You say,
That doesn't really matter, it matters that a reasonable jury could have
found him guilty based upon the evidence presented. If evidence was
improperly excluded by the judge, then that is a valid issue on appeal.
But
no appeals court is going to overturn a verdict simply because "nobody
knows
for sure if he is guilty." The jury FOUND him guilty, whether they "knew"
he was guilty or not. That's what a fact-FINDER does.
Well that is matter of opinion, do you think the OJ jury was reasonable? No,
fine, question answered
--
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:32:23 -0800, "Chris" <ch@zero.com> wrote:
"Falky foo" <falkyfoo@bonksbcglobal.net> wrote in message
But
no appeals court is going to overturn a verdict simply because "nobody
knows
for sure if he is guilty." The jury FOUND him guilty, whether they "knew"
he was guilty or not. That's what a fact-FINDER does.
Well that is matter of opinion, do you think the OJ jury was reasonable?
Highly reasonable, based on the fact that the defence pretty much
managed to convict the prosecution...
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
"All I know is that I'm being sued for unfair business practices by Microsoft. Hello pot? It's kettle on line two" -
Michael Robertson
|
| |
| |
Explain to me, please, what this garbage has to do with this newsgroup?
Well that is matter of opinion, do you think the OJ jury was reasonable?
No,
fine, question answered
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:33:42 -0500, "Saurus" <saurus@whereto.now>
wrote:
Explain to me, please, what this garbage has to do with this newsgroup?
Which newsgroup?
It is cross posted to 6, and only misc.legal is relevant (It isn't a
UK case).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
To err is human. To blame someone else is politics.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
|
| |
| |
It is crossposted to microsoft newsgroup for outlook express, for one thing.
It does not belong here, nor is cross posting legitimate.
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:33:42 -0500, "Saurus" <saurus@whereto.now>
wrote:
Which newsgroup?
It is cross posted to 6, and only misc.legal is relevant (It isn't a
UK case).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
To err is human. To blame someone else is politics.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:05:22 -0500, in alt.tv.sopranos, Saurus rubs the
lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this
whenever it's told -
It is crossposted to microsoft newsgroup for outlook express, for one thing.
It does not belong here, nor is cross posting legitimate.
I'm using Outlook Express to post with, so it's a relevant group.
--
Magnificent Bastard Productions 2004
http://www.magnificentbastardproductions.com
|
| |
| |
It is crossposted to microsoft newsgroup for outlook express, for one
thing.
It does not belong here, nor is cross posting legitimate.
Like many peoples, I too youse OutLook Express. Therefore it is not
illegitimate.
concienciousDave\||||||||||||||||||||||\
|
| |
| |
And Saint The Magnificent Bastard raised the holy hand grenade of Antioch up on high,
saying,
I'm using Outlook Express to post with, so it's a relevant group.
Hmm. I could have sworn you were using Gravity.
--
snotrag
"...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped."
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:49:48 -0600, in alt.tv.sopranos, snotrag rubs the
lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this
whenever it's told -
And Saint The Magnificent Bastard raised the holy hand grenade of Antioch up on high,
saying,
Hmm. I could have sworn you were using Gravity.
Don't be such a know-it-all.
--
Magnificent Bastard Productions 2004
http://www.magnificentbastardproductions.com
|
| |
| |
Only is one is so stupid as to believe that the SUBJECT is relevant to
Outlook Express. Anyone with an IQ of 80 knows it is NOT. I guess this is
why OE supports a fairly decent message filter - which you are now in.
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:05:22 -0500, in alt.tv.sopranos, Saurus rubs the
lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this
whenever it's told -
I'm using Outlook Express to post with, so it's a relevant group.
--
Magnificent Bastard Productions 2004
http://www.magnificentbastardproductions.com
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:42:39 -0500, in alt.tv.sopranos, Saurus rubs the
lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this
whenever it's told -
Only is one is so stupid as to believe that the SUBJECT is relevant to
Outlook Express. Anyone with an IQ of 80 knows it is NOT. I guess this is
why OE supports a fairly decent message filter - which you are now in.
It might have a decent message filter, but why won't Outlook Express
automatically start your reply at the bottom of the post you are
responding to?
You wind up top-posting and looking like an idiot...
--
Magnificent Bastard Productions 2004
http://www.magnificentbastardproductions.com
|
| |
| |
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Magnificent+Bastard+Productions
"The Magnificent Bastard" <magnif_bastard@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:MPG.1c2ac163654423dc989fdb@news.alt.net...
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:42:39 -0500, in alt.tv.sopranos, Saurus
rubs the
lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again. It does
this
whenever it's told -
It might have a decent message filter, but why won't Outlook
Express
automatically start your reply at the bottom of the post you are
responding to?
You wind up top-posting and looking like an idiot...
--
Magnificent Bastard Productions 2004
http://www.magnificentbastardproductions.com
|
| |
| |
In article <MPG.1c2927e01e0bd205989fc0@news.alt.net>, The Magnificent
Bastard <magnif_bastard@hotmail.com> wrote:
Many legal experts have already gone on record and stated that Scott
Petersen will go free when his appeal is heard.
It's unlikely he will go free. Assuming he is sentenced to death, an
appellate court would more likely either 1) simply change his sentence to
life or 2) order a new trial.
There are several reasons:
Purely circumstantial evidence. With a lack of physical evidence, the
death penalty should not have been imposed.
No sentence was imposed yet. The judge will impose sentence in January or
February, and he will decide whether or not to folow the jury's
recommendation of death.
Further, AFAIK, there is no higher standrd of proof or requirement of
specific evidence for the imposition of one available sentence over
another. Whether or not there should be a higher standard of proof in
capital cases is a different debate; the fact is, there isn't. And in
every state I know of, circumstantial evidence is given the same weight as
direct evidence.
Juror misconduct. More will be made public about this in the days and
weeks to come. Petersen is almost a lock to get a mistrial once
everything is revealed.
It's too late for him to get a mistrial. You're talking about reversal on
appeal.
Supressed evidence. Prosecutors successfully supressed the fact that
Laci Peteren contacted the police in 2002 about a mysterious "stalker"
who had followed her home from work on two occasions. This evidence
will not be supressed the second time around.
This may indeed be an appealable issue. The question is whether this 2002
report is anything more than specilation that someone else was
responsible. Since you're innocent until proven guilty, the prosecutor
often can not use any prior police reports to show that the defendant is
guilty - therefore it seems like the other side of the coin to say that
just because there was a police report about someone else, that *that*
person may be guilty.
Jurors being switched during the deliberations phase. The judge didn't
have the guts to call a mistrial, but should have. This will play
heavily in Petersen's favor.
Why "should" the judge have done this? Do you know anything about the
standards for declaring a mistrial? There is nothing wrong with switching
jurors during deliberations, assuming the proper instructions are given.
Without a shred of physical evidence, nobody knows for sure if he is
guilty or not. As of now, he has been found guilty, but there is no way
the conviction will hold up during the appeals process.
Actually, the jury declared him guilty. As his guilt has been proven
beyond a reasonable doubt, he is in fact guilty under the law.
Oh, and with regards to your subject line, which "experts" are saying any
of this?
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:49:48 -0600, in alt.tv.sopranos, snotrag rubs the
lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this
whenever it's told -
Learn how to spell three-letter English pronouns.
|
| |
| |
Hello, Jeff!
You wrote on Wed, 15 Dec 2004 18:50:13 -0800:
J> "The Magnificent Bastard" <magnif_bastard@hotmail.com> wrote in
J> message news:MPG.1c2ac163654423dc989fdb@news.alt.net...
??>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:42:39 -0500, in alt.tv.sopranos, Saurus
??>> rubs the
??>> lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again. It does
??>> this
??>> whenever it's told -
??>>
??>>> Only is one is so stupid as to believe that the SUBJECT is
??>>> relevant to
??>>> Outlook Express. Anyone with an IQ of 80 knows it is NOT. I
??>>> guess this is
??>>> why OE supports a fairly decent message filter - which you are
??>>> now in.
??>>
??>> It might have a decent message filter, but why won't Outlook
??>> Express
??>> automatically start your reply at the bottom of the post you are
??>> responding to?
??>>
??>> You wind up top-posting and looking like an idiot...
??>>
??>>> "The Magnificent Bastard" <magnif_bastard@hotmail.com> wrote in
??>>> message
??>>> news:MPG.1c2aab32babfe9ac989fd7@news.alt.net...
??>>>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:05:22 -0500, in alt.tv.sopranos,
??>>>> Saurus rubs the
??>>>> lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again. It does
??>>>> this
??>>>> whenever it's told -
??>>>>
??>>>>> It is crossposted to microsoft newsgroup for outlook
??>>>>> express, for one
??>>> thing.
??>>>>> It does not belong here, nor is cross posting legitimate.
??>>>>
??>>>> I'm using Outlook Express to post with, so it's a relevant
??>>>> group.
??>>>>
??>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:33:42 -0500, "Saurus"
??>>>>>> <saurus@whereto.now>
??>>>>>> wrote:
??>>>>>>
??>>>>>>> Explain to me, please, what this garbage has to do with
??>>>>>>> this
??>>> newsgroup?
??>>>>>>>
??>>>>>> Which newsgroup?
??>>>>>>
??>>>>>> It is cross posted to 6, and only misc.legal is relevant
??>>>>>> (It isn't a
??>>>>>> UK case).
??>>>>>>
??>>>>>> --
??>>>>>> Alex Heney, Global Villager
??>>>>>> To err is human. To blame someone else is politics.
??>>>>>>
??>>>>>> To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
??>>>>>
??>>>> --
??>>>> Magnificent Bastard Productions 2004
??>>>>
??>>>> http://www.magnificentbastardproductions.com
??>>>
??>> --
??>> Magnificent Bastard Productions 2004
??>>
??>> http://www.magnificentbastardproductions.com
It looks like M. Bastard has a lot of time to Troll about. How sad. Oh,
and Scott P will get his.
With best regards, Joker. E-mail: post_master@sbcglobal.net
|
| &nbs | | |
