Hoflich
Senior Member
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: entirely within reason
Posts: 218 |
Is it legal to deny Mark Geragos the opportunity to call a witness to defend Scott?
quote:
Originally posted by amandaplease
ABC news has learned the reason why the rebuttal witnesses were not called to the stand. The prosecution's witnesses were all here and ready to testify, but the defense's rebuttal witness did not make it to the courthouse. Apparently, the prosecution had agreed to transport the defense witness to Redwood City, but failed to do so. The Peterson's next-door-neighbor, Vladmir Rodriguez, was supposed to testify for the defense about a bag of concrete he had left on the Peterson driveway. But sources tell ABC, since the prosecution failed to bring this defense witness to court, the judge decided the prosecution could not present witnesses either. Mark Geragos had effectively proved that every prosecution witness highlighted Scott's innocence, so why would this biased judge provide the opportunity to further erode state's fickle case?
So was the prosecution's mistake an accident or intentional? Scott Peterson's brother, John, believes it was on purpose. "The prosecution was hoisted by their own petard today … trying to play dirty tricks with the witnesses. They were supposed to pick up a witness today, they agreed to pick him up, and they didn't. Basically it was another one of their dirty tricks."
This may, of course, be true but it smacks of another "expert witness can't get here" story. If Rodriquez was a defence witness, he probably wouldn't have testified until the following day, anyway.
In a trial where the delays are measured in weeks, it's hard to imagine why hours would suddenly become critical.
|
Well, it isn't really that difficult to figure out. Judge Delluchi delayed the trial for an entire week, to give prosecutors and Nancy Grace the opportunity to manufacture hysterical rebuttal to the well known fact that Scott Peterson did not use cement to make anchors, he used it to repair his driveway. Investigator, David Sween does not suffer fools lightly, especially the hysterics who talk about anchors that do not even exist, and he has summarized the current tactics that have seriously jeopardized the opportunity for full disclosure, in the following terms:
The dirty tricks that have denied Mark Geragos the opportunity to present defense witness testimony to the jury have exposed a judge and a cohort prosecution that maliciously diverted attention away from the fact that there is no credible rebuttal to the claim that Scott Peterson is innocent.
The transparent collusion between the judge and the prosecution is clear. Understanding the fact that the reliability of Mark Geragos's surebuttal witnesses would have pulverized the prosecution's fickle rebuttal, the judge and the prosecution abused a process that is supposed to be fair to both sides and scripted a November 3rd, anticipated conclusion that would favor the prosecution by limiting the opportunity to further prove that Scott Peterson is innocent.
But when the judge and the prosecutors effectively squelched rebuttal to a six-day defense, they proved that there is no reasonable rebuttal to the simple fact that Scott Peterson is innocent.
Unfortunately, the trial of Scott Peterson has become a game where this bizarre collusion [that effectively denied the expected opportunity to showcase key defense witnesses] between the judge and the prosecution is conspiring to falsely accuse an innocent man, not because they are able to prove anything, but because they exploit the fact that the creeps who murdered Laci Peterson can rely upon the dirty tricks of a sleazy judge and sleazy prosecutors. It's not working. The creeps who think they have the power and the authority to cover up the truth about the murder of Laci Peterson, have failed to effectively frame Scott Peterson, because he is not guilty under the law, whether he is convicted or not. Mark Geragos thought he could force the prosecution to launch a comprehensive investigation that would lead to the real killers, but he was wrong. The prosecution thought that it could get away with railroading an innocent man, but it was wrong. Scott Peterson is innocent, despite Mark Geragos and despite a sleazy prosecution.
The prosecution stranglehold on defense witnesses has elevated the possibility that Vivian Mitchell was viciously attackedand murdered because she was a reliable witness, to the level of probability. The extreme obsession to deny Scott Peterson the opportunity to defend himself proves that there is no legitimate reason to continue to imprison a man who is so innocent, that it is not even remotely plausible to impeach the fact, through reasonable rebuttal.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Scott peterson is stone-cold innocent, but this judge and this prosecution deserves the death penalty, for covering up the truth about the murder of Laci Peterson.
|
