Scott Peterson

These cases are suggested by forum members for research and information. Injustice Anywhere has not reviewed the details of each case and does not necessarily endorse any claims made within this section. Cases we currently advocate for can be viewed in the "Injustice Anywhere Featured Cases" section, located in the board index.
Forum rules
These cases are suggested by forum members for research and information. Injustice Anywhere has not reviewed the details of each case and does not necessarily endorse any claims made within this section. Cases we currently advocate for can be viewed in the "Injustice Anywhere Featured Cases" section, located in the board index.

Should we reconsider everything we've been told, when a man's life is on the line

Yes
84
79%
No
22
21%
 
Total votes : 106

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Introspectre » Wed Jul 05, 2017 6:11 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
anonshy wrote:Did the Defense have an opportunity to depose the witness = Yes
Did the Defense have the opportunity to question the witness = Yes

Not sure what you are complaining about?

You may be of the belief that the case was based on a lie. Nothing Graybill testified to in court exonerates Scott. Look in the court transcript, what was presented in court, stop living in fantasy land - I'm only interested in what Graybil says on the record and what stands up to cross examination.


While as you know, I think Scott Peterson is guilty, if the defense did not interview Graybill and they were made aware of him, it is quite possibly an ineffective assistance claim. If the prosecution did not tell the defense, it is quite possibly a Brady issue. It does not matter if the information is useless in the end, the defense had the responsibility to at least talk to him.


The Defense did talk to Russell Graybill and the Prosecution did turn over the police report and moreover, the Defense knew that Russell Graybill had talked to someone in the MPD. Also, Russell Graybill was subject to recall.
Introspectre
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:46 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Desert Fox » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:46 pm

Introspectre wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
anonshy wrote:Did the Defense have an opportunity to depose the witness = Yes
Did the Defense have the opportunity to question the witness = Yes

Not sure what you are complaining about?

You may be of the belief that the case was based on a lie. Nothing Graybill testified to in court exonerates Scott. Look in the court transcript, what was presented in court, stop living in fantasy land - I'm only interested in what Graybil says on the record and what stands up to cross examination.


While as you know, I think Scott Peterson is guilty, if the defense did not interview Graybill and they were made aware of him, it is quite possibly an ineffective assistance claim. If the prosecution did not tell the defense, it is quite possibly a Brady issue. It does not matter if the information is useless in the end, the defense had the responsibility to at least talk to him.


The Defense did talk to Russell Graybill and the Prosecution did turn over the police report and moreover, the Defense knew that Russell Graybill had talked to someone in the MPD. Also, Russell Graybill was subject to recall.


In that case, neither Ineffective Assistance or Brady will probably be valid arguments.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:00 am

To Jane

Hey Jane, you have guts to stand into your way of supporting Scott Peterson and I have to say it. You are right that he innocent even every time I hate it when me or you or anyone being a target of attack even I know that I put people in my foe list and the reason why? Because I an't buying it. I tried everything into a court of law. I know sometimes people don't like me?

Why? Because I am retarded of why I am deaf of being a retarded monster. I know that I see this case was into a heated way. I never seen a tough cookie woman who fight for anything. I know a lot of people do go out of there way and yes I did watch that episode Snapped of Scott Peterson and I do believe for his innocent. I know it hard for me, in ways when I explain my detail of how I believe into criminal law. I tried everything and it never works. I know it stinks into a :jaw-dropping: moment. It hard me even I only believe guilt into self defense and that is were I stand!!!

I do truly hope you keep up the good work even yes we got 2 trolls in here and I already put them in my foe list. I am not going to listen even I go by my own way and I believe if there is a chance of change to prove his or her innocent or the police play some stupid silly game of DA of sloppy Joe. I an't going to buy it. Yes they can sue me!!!

I will pray for your wish of Scott Peterson to be set free: :beg: :for you: I wish you the best of luck and I know that I never get any responds, even I don't want any responds from my 2 trolls as well. So keep up the good work Jane and your doing a great job and thanks for the case of Sarah Johnson, and I am going to find some more ways. I also going out my own way to free the innocent and I hope you wish me luck and I will wish you the best of luck to free Scott Peterson and talk to you soon Jane!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5, Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4430
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:37 am

Desert Fox wrote:
Introspectre wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
anonshy wrote:Did the Defense have an opportunity to depose the witness = Yes
Did the Defense have the opportunity to question the witness = Yes

Not sure what you are complaining about?

You may be of the belief that the case was based on a lie. Nothing Graybill testified to in court exonerates Scott. Look in the court transcript, what was presented in court, stop living in fantasy land - I'm only interested in what Graybil says on the record and what stands up to cross examination.


While as you know, I think Scott Peterson is guilty, if the defense did not interview Graybill and they were made aware of him, it is quite possibly an ineffective assistance claim. If the prosecution did not tell the defense, it is quite possibly a Brady issue. It does not matter if the information is useless in the end, the defense had the responsibility to at least talk to him.


The Defense did talk to Russell Graybill and the Prosecution did turn over the police report and moreover, the Defense knew that Russell Graybill had talked to someone in the MPD. Also, Russell Graybill was subject to recall.


In that case, neither Ineffective Assistance or Brady will probably be valid arguments.


Agree Completely, there is no issue here for Appeal, and limited usage for Habeas - Again living with the reality of a convicted felon.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:39 am

ScifiTom wrote:To Jane

Hey Jane, you have guts to stand into your way of supporting Scott Peterson and I have to say it. You are right that he innocent even every time I hate it when me or you or anyone being a target of attack even I know that I put people in my foe list and the reason why? Because I an't buying it. I tried everything into a court of law. I know sometimes people don't like me?

Why? Because I am retarded of why I am deaf of being a retarded monster. I know that I see this case was into a heated way. I never seen a tough cookie woman who fight for anything. I know a lot of people do go out of there way and yes I did watch that episode Snapped of Scott Peterson and I do believe for his innocent. I know it hard for me, in ways when I explain my detail of how I believe into criminal law. I tried everything and it never works. I know it stinks into a :jaw-dropping: moment. It hard me even I only believe guilt into self defense and that is were I stand!!!

I do truly hope you keep up the good work even yes we got 2 trolls in here and I already put them in my foe list. I am not going to listen even I go by my own way and I believe if there is a chance of change to prove his or her innocent or the police play some stupid silly game of DA of sloppy Joe. I an't going to buy it. Yes they can sue me!!!

I will pray for your wish of Scott Peterson to be set free: :beg: :for you: I wish you the best of luck and I know that I never get any responds, even I don't want any responds from my 2 trolls as well. So keep up the good work Jane and your doing a great job and thanks for the case of Sarah Johnson, and I am going to find some more ways. I also going out my own way to free the innocent and I hope you wish me luck and I will wish you the best of luck to free Scott Peterson and talk to you soon Jane!!!


Thank you, Tom!
jane
 
Posts: 2562
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Desert Fox » Thu Jul 06, 2017 12:30 pm

anonshy wrote:Agree Completely, there is no issue here for Appeal, and limited usage for Habeas - Again living with the reality of a convicted felon.


I do hope that California decides to end the death penalty however. I don't see executing him as any kind of justice.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Fri Jul 07, 2017 4:54 am

How many lies can you find in this excerpt from Distaso's Closing Argument?

Russell Graybill. He was on Covena between 10:35 and 10:50. He didn't see anything. Amy Krigbaum, between 10:30 and 10:38. She didn't see anything.
You heard some testimony about Diane Jackson. Remember that? And seeing a van.
Remember what Amy Krigbaum said. She said that she had that white Siemens van at the time. I had her write on this picture. Remember, this is looking at the Peterson house. Remember, this is from her house looking there.
Remember what she said? She said, yeah, it was parked right in front of my house. He even had it right where it was, a van.
You heard Diane Jackson saw a van. I think the testimony was 11:40. You heard that through the officer. There is a van. Of course, she saw a van. Van is right there on the street.
You saw Kim Westphal, one of the women that came walking. Said she was walking on Covena around 10:50. She didn't see anything.
Kristin Dempewolf. Her husband Martin came in and testified. She said she left home around 9:15 to 9:30. I think the testimony was that it's on the map that is in evidence, it would have put her walking past the Petersons' home some time around 10:00 o'clock or so. I don't remember that exactly, so you should probably go back to check that one.
Remember, Susan Medina, the neighbors across the street. They were out on Covena a couple of times. They had a city inspector come at some time in the morning. Bob Nickerson. He was, he was there between 10:20 and 10:30.
He didn't see anything. Remember what she said? They left their home between 10:30 and 10:33 on the 24th. And the way they know that is because Susan Medina has her cell phone records.
She said, I called my son as we were leaving town. And the record shows they  left at 10:33. And she said, I called from Encina. It's on here, Encina, right turned on to Encina. That's where she called. That's where she called from.
And Encina is right around the corner. So she probably left her house her at 10:32. Couldn't take more than a minute to drive down Covena to Encina. She didn't see anything.
Now that's a good point. That brings up a good point with the Medinas.
Remember we heard all that testimony about the burglary at their house? There was a burglary at their house. It didn't happen on December 24th. It didn't have anything to do with Laci Peterson's disappearance, because the Medinas were home at the time the dog was found.
You can take everything about the cell sites, and you can take everything about Austin's receipts and throw it away, go with Karen Servas's original statement where she said, I found the dog exactly at 10:30.
Well, let me discuss that. She just left, or they were just getting ready to leave, or they were in their driveway and they hadn't left yet, and she found the dog.Now, the Medina's didn't see anything about the dog. What that tells us is that Karen Servas's 10:18 time is right. They already put that dog away.
But one thing we know without any doubt whatsoever is that Medina burglary had nothing to do with this crime whatsoever. Because that dog was found before the Medinas even left their home.
jane
 
Posts: 2562
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:45 am

Desert Fox wrote:
anonshy wrote:Agree Completely, there is no issue here for Appeal, and limited usage for Habeas - Again living with the reality of a convicted felon.


I do hope that California decides to end the death penalty however. I don't see executing him as any kind of justice.


I agree, it is very barbaric for a first world nation.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:43 am

anonshy wrote:I also have hope on this great Holiday (Happy 4th!), Hope & happiness that no one will ever be Harmed again at the hands of the Evil Monster Scott Peterson. So on a day where proud Americans celebrate the country and Freedom, we can all add Safety to that list as one less Monster is out walking the streets!

Anon


It is posts like this that say volumes about your character. Your sole intention with this post is to bait and provoke emotion. Very sad but not surprising.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:11 am

Desert Fox wrote:
Introspectre wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
anonshy wrote:Did the Defense have an opportunity to depose the witness = Yes
Did the Defense have the opportunity to question the witness = Yes

Not sure what you are complaining about?

You may be of the belief that the case was based on a lie. Nothing Graybill testified to in court exonerates Scott. Look in the court transcript, what was presented in court, stop living in fantasy land - I'm only interested in what Graybil says on the record and what stands up to cross examination.


While as you know, I think Scott Peterson is guilty, if the defense did not interview Graybill and they were made aware of him, it is quite possibly an ineffective assistance claim. If the prosecution did not tell the defense, it is quite possibly a Brady issue. It does not matter if the information is useless in the end, the defense had the responsibility to at least talk to him.


The Defense did talk to Russell Graybill and the Prosecution did turn over the police report and moreover, the Defense knew that Russell Graybill had talked to someone in the MPD. Also, Russell Graybill was subject to recall.


In that case, neither Ineffective Assistance or Brady will probably be valid arguments.


Can you please explain why not? If a defense attorney has information that could have changed the verdict (and the Graybill information certainly could have changed the verdict if the jury was made to understand what it meant) and he doesn't use it - how is that not IAC? There was NO strategic reason for Geragos not to ask Graybill about the open gate. Geragos was clearly trying to discredit Karen Servas. He questioned her about changing her times and her testimony from prelim to trial. He attempted to prove that her Austin's receipt was not accurate. Graybill proves one of two things. Either Karen Servas was wrong. Or Scott Peterson is innocent. Both would have been beneficial to Scott. So there was no benefit to not using the Graybill information about the gate being open. It was not a strategic decision. Geragos doesn't say in the habeas that he chose not to use it - he says in the habeas he never saw that information. Because if he had had that information - he would have used it. Even if it was because Geragos' hired lame assistants who failed to bring this info to his attention - or Geragos just missed it - ultimately the fault lies with Geragos. Geragos has admitted to this in the habeas.

However, you may be able to overcome the presumption that your attorney's work was effective. You need to show that his work didn't meet professional standards. For instance, counsel's assistance may be ineffective when he:

Fails to investigate fully the facts and circumstances of the defendant's case, such as when the attorney fails to find there was an alibi witness
•Gives the defendant bad advice about the law governing the case and, based upon that bad advice, the defendant pleads guilty to crime
•Doesn't tell the defendant about a plea bargain offered by the state or prosecution


Graybill is an alibi witness to a certain degree. Scott was indisputably at the warehouse when Grabyill delivered the mail. There is no doubt what time Graybill delivered the mail (10:35-10:50). According to the prosecution there is no doubt that Karen Servas found the dog at 10:18 (latest). And there is no doubt someone returned the dog to the yard after Graybill delivered the mail. And there is no doubt that it could not have been Scott. If Servas is right -which according to the prosecution she is....and Graybill is right....Scott Peterson is innocent. Anonshy can argue all day long that Graybill is probably wrong.....but the jury should have gotten the chance to decide that.
lsmith510
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:29 pm

lsmith510 wrote:
anonshy wrote:I also have hope on this great Holiday (Happy 4th!), Hope & happiness that no one will ever be Harmed again at the hands of the Evil Monster Scott Peterson. So on a day where proud Americans celebrate the country and Freedom, we can all add Safety to that list as one less Monster is out walking the streets!

Anon


It is posts like this that say volumes about your character. Your sole intention with this post is to bait and provoke emotion. Very sad but not surprising.


Just the Ying to the Yang of the post I was responding to. And in this instance I am un-apoligetic and happy that this type of criminal is not on the streets.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:45 pm

lsmith510 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Introspectre wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
anonshy wrote:Did the Defense have an opportunity to depose the witness = Yes
Did the Defense have the opportunity to question the witness = Yes

Not sure what you are complaining about?

You may be of the belief that the case was based on a lie. Nothing Graybill testified to in court exonerates Scott. Look in the court transcript, what was presented in court, stop living in fantasy land - I'm only interested in what Graybil says on the record and what stands up to cross examination.


While as you know, I think Scott Peterson is guilty, if the defense did not interview Graybill and they were made aware of him, it is quite possibly an ineffective assistance claim. If the prosecution did not tell the defense, it is quite possibly a Brady issue. It does not matter if the information is useless in the end, the defense had the responsibility to at least talk to him.


The Defense did talk to Russell Graybill and the Prosecution did turn over the police report and moreover, the Defense knew that Russell Graybill had talked to someone in the MPD. Also, Russell Graybill was subject to recall.


In that case, neither Ineffective Assistance or Brady will probably be valid arguments.


Can you please explain why not? If a defense attorney has information that could have changed the verdict (and the Graybill information certainly could have changed the verdict if the jury was made to understand what it meant) and he doesn't use it - how is that not IAC? There was NO strategic reason for Geragos not to ask Graybill about the open gate. Geragos was clearly trying to discredit Karen Servas. He questioned her about changing her times and her testimony from prelim to trial. He attempted to prove that her Austin's receipt was not accurate. Graybill proves one of two things. Either Karen Servas was wrong. Or Scott Peterson is innocent. Both would have been beneficial to Scott. So there was no benefit to not using the Graybill information about the gate being open. It was not a strategic decision. Geragos doesn't say in the habeas that he chose not to use it - he says in the habeas he never saw that information. Because if he had had that information - he would have used it. Even if it was because Geragos' hired lame assistants who failed to bring this info to his attention - or Geragos just missed it - ultimately the fault lies with Geragos. Geragos has admitted to this in the habeas.

However, you may be able to overcome the presumption that your attorney's work was effective. You need to show that his work didn't meet professional standards. For instance, counsel's assistance may be ineffective when he:

Fails to investigate fully the facts and circumstances of the defendant's case, such as when the attorney fails to find there was an alibi witness
•Gives the defendant bad advice about the law governing the case and, based upon that bad advice, the defendant pleads guilty to crime
•Doesn't tell the defendant about a plea bargain offered by the state or prosecution


Graybill is an alibi witness to a certain degree. Scott was indisputably at the warehouse when Grabyill delivered the mail. There is no doubt what time Graybill delivered the mail (10:35-10:50). According to the prosecution there is no doubt that Karen Servas found the dog at 10:18 (latest). And there is no doubt someone returned the dog to the yard after Graybill delivered the mail. And there is no doubt that it could not have been Scott. If Servas is right -which according to the prosecution she is....and Graybill is right....Scott Peterson is innocent. Anonshy can argue all day long that Graybill is probably wrong.....but the jury should have gotten the chance to decide that.


Was the witness presented to the court for examination? Was the Prosecution and Defense allowed direct and cross examination? Given all of the other information in this case, as I have said many times, it is more likely that Graybil is off on his timing than any other explanation. Your explanations all circle around the same failed argument, that Laci was caught up in a robbery and killed. There is no credible evidence that that ever happened, in that vacuum, there is only one reality, Scott Planned and killed Laci. In any event, Graybil was covered off by discovery and was a witness presented to the court and was available to be asked any question by either side. This is not new evidence, it was available to both parties, and therefore doe not adhere to the rules of New Evidence for the purposes of Appeal or Habeas, after all we should all be looking at this case from the proper perspective. That perspective being, Scott is a convicted murderer and his avenues to change that status are limited to Appeal and Habeas, Both Habeas and Appeal have very strict rules that govern procedure and submission. This is the area that needs to be concentrated on. So as much as you feel Graybil gives an air tight alibi, the question you really have to answer is if the information is admissible on appeal, there is a strong indication that it is not.

Geragos has Graybil's statement, from his interview and the submission in the grand jury. The reson he did not push in any one direction was directy due to the strategy his team and Peterson decided to put forward. Strategy in light of full disclsure is not an issue on Appeal or Habeas. Scott's defense is easily classified by the fact he had a very seasoned lawyer that indeed put on a persuasive defense. Lawyers lose all the time, losing in and of itself does not constitute IAC. Geragos did not fall below any standard for representation, the few items you disagree with are easily explained as Strategy!

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Desert Fox » Fri Jul 07, 2017 4:00 pm

lsmith510 wrote:Can you please explain why not? If a defense attorney has information that could have changed the verdict (and the Graybill information certainly could have changed the verdict if the jury was made to understand what it meant) and he doesn't use it - how is that not IAC? There was NO strategic reason for Geragos not to ask Graybill about the open gate. Geragos was clearly trying to discredit Karen Servas. He questioned her about changing her times and her testimony from prelim to trial. He attempted to prove that her Austin's receipt was not accurate. Graybill proves one of two things. Either Karen Servas was wrong. Or Scott Peterson is innocent. Both would have been beneficial to Scott. So there was no benefit to not using the Graybill information about the gate being open. It was not a strategic decision. Geragos doesn't say in the habeas that he chose not to use it - he says in the habeas he never saw that information. Because if he had had that information - he would have used it. Even if it was because Geragos' hired lame assistants who failed to bring this info to his attention - or Geragos just missed it - ultimately the fault lies with Geragos. Geragos has admitted to this in the habeas.


Brady is if the prosecution knew about a witness or evidence and did not disclose it to the police. . . .As long as they disclose witness or information, no Brady

In the case of Ineffective Assistance, if the defense attorney knows about a witness and/or evidence and does not interview a witness (or have their investigator do so) and if they don't properly examine evidence, that can be a claim of ineffective assistance. If they did their due diligence to investigate, even if not later using in court, it is seen as strategy.

There may be other ways that ineffective assistance can be claimed but at least no a claim in the manner I am thinking. It is still a hard argument. There is a case in Maryland where the defense attorney was suffering from multiple sclerosis and appeared to do no real preparations, yet arguing ineffective assistance is almost impossible.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:05 am

Huge lie from Craig Grogan, the lead detective in the case:

FLADAGER: Now is there a time frame that was available for Laci Peterson to be out walking............
GROGAN: Yes.
FLADAGER: What was that time frame?
GROGAN: From approximately 10:08 to 10:18.

Keep in mind that on 12-27-02, 3 days after Laci disappeared, Grogan had the Skultety/Callahan report that said this:

“[Graybill] said he entered the area around 1030 to 1045 in the morning. He said he couldn’t remember anything unusual from 516 Covena, but remembered the gate was open at 523 Covena. He said usually the dog barks at him from behind the gate. On 12-24-02 the gate was open and he did not see nor hear the dog at 523 Covena.”
jane
 
Posts: 2562
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:38 pm

jane wrote:Huge lie from Craig Grogan, the lead detective in the case:

FLADAGER: Now is there a time frame that was available for Laci Peterson to be out walking............
GROGAN: Yes.
FLADAGER: What was that time frame?
GROGAN: From approximately 10:08 to 10:18.

Keep in mind that on 12-27-02, 3 days after Laci disappeared, Grogan had the Skultety/Callahan report that said this:

“[Graybill] said he entered the area around 1030 to 1045 in the morning. He said he couldn’t remember anything unusual from 516 Covena, but remembered the gate was open at 523 Covena. He said usually the dog barks at him from behind the gate. On 12-24-02 the gate was open and he did not see nor hear the dog at 523 Covena.”

What's the latest Jane? Has the Graybill point, which I see as a potential knockout, been answered yet? I move to reasonable doubt if Graybill stands up.
Sample 36B: not blood, not human and not a sample (no cytology!!). Sample 36I: Amanda's LCN profile, ergo the knife is the murder weapon. :boggled:
When do we get the fibre analysis results?
Clive Wismayer
 
Posts: 13824
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:40 am
Location: Surrey, England

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:13 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:What's the latest Jane? Has the Graybill point, which I see as a potential knockout, been answered yet? I move to reasonable doubt if Graybill stands up.

And I will pass out.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8001
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:40 pm

jane wrote:Huge lie from Craig Grogan, the lead detective in the case:

FLADAGER: Now is there a time frame that was available for Laci Peterson to be out walking............
GROGAN: Yes.
FLADAGER: What was that time frame?
GROGAN: From approximately 10:08 to 10:18.

Keep in mind that on 12-27-02, 3 days after Laci disappeared, Grogan had the Skultety/Callahan report that said this:

“[Graybill] said he entered the area around 1030 to 1045 in the morning. He said he couldn’t remember anything unusual from 516 Covena, but remembered the gate was open at 523 Covena. He said usually the dog barks at him from behind the gate. On 12-24-02 the gate was open and he did not see nor hear the dog at 523 Covena.”


Is this testimony from the trial? These names don't seem to be lawyers from the case.......

On conviction reasonable Doubt requirments and the presumption of innocence no longer apply. Neither Habeas or Appeal are about re-trying the case.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jul 11, 2017 7:18 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
jane wrote:Huge lie from Craig Grogan, the lead detective in the case:

FLADAGER: Now is there a time frame that was available for Laci Peterson to be out walking............
GROGAN: Yes.
FLADAGER: What was that time frame?
GROGAN: From approximately 10:08 to 10:18.

Keep in mind that on 12-27-02, 3 days after Laci disappeared, Grogan had the Skultety/Callahan report that said this:

“[Graybill] said he entered the area around 1030 to 1045 in the morning. He said he couldn’t remember anything unusual from 516 Covena, but remembered the gate was open at 523 Covena. He said usually the dog barks at him from behind the gate. On 12-24-02 the gate was open and he did not see nor hear the dog at 523 Covena.”

What's the latest Jane? Has the Graybill point, which I see as a potential knockout, been answered yet? I move to reasonable doubt if Graybill stands up.


Welcome back, Clive.

It's a long, painful process. The prosecution has until December 15 to file their reply to the habeas. All of the documents have been filed in the direct appeal. Then I suppose it will take another year or two for the CASC to hear arguments and make a decision. And a few more years if there's a retrial.

There are some new developments coming up in the next few weeks which should have a positive effect on public opinion about the case.

I'll post it here when it happens.
jane
 
Posts: 2562
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:42 am

Details emerge to counter Scott Peterson appeal

By Garth Stapley

gstapley@modbee.com

Scott Peterson is “truly among the worst of the worst” of California’s murderers for callously slaying his pregnant wife and their unborn son in late 2002, state prosecutors said this week in a blistering reply to the Modesto man’s death sentence appeal.

Even as his mother-in-law prepared to host a Christmas party to which they were invited, Peterson “weighted down his wife’s lifeless body and dumped her in the (San Francisco) Bay in the hope that the forces of nature would carry the evidence out to sea,” the 519-page document says. “(Peterson) did not care one whit for the wife who vowed to love him for a lifetime or his child waiting to be born.”

Peterson, then 30, later was convicted in a trial that intrigued people around the globe and arrived on death row in March 2005. Attorneys hired by his family filed his official appeal in July 2012, and he turned 42 in October.

California has not had an execution in nine years, and 749 condemned prisoners were on death row as of Jan. 5.

Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant when her Christmas Eve 2002 disappearance captured the attention of well-wishers far and wide. Her husband said he went fishing alone and she was gone when he returned.

Revelations of his affair with Amber Frey of Fresno turned public sentiment against Scott Peterson, and authorities arrested him after the bodies of mother and unborn child washed ashore nearly four months later. His celebrity attorney from Los Angeles, Mark Geragos, was unable to convince jurors that Peterson had nothing to do with the killings.

His new attorneys argued in the 2012 appeal that evidence “was anything but overwhelming” and charged that Judge Alfred Delucci, who since has died, made several missteps warranting a new trial. This week’s response from the office of California Attorney General Kamala Harris attempts to provide point-by-point answers.

For example, the appeal says Delucci should have:

▪ Kept dozens of prospective jurors in the pool even though they professed misgivings about the death penalty, because some may have been willing to overlook their own views in some cases.

The response details information on each prospective juror in question, some of whom said they would never impose a death penalty because of moral or religious reasons and others who would have no income if forced to participate in a trial expected to last several months. One “repeated that she ‘vehemently’ opposed the death penalty”; another said when questioned before the trial, “I’ve assumed he’s guilty” and “I don’t believe his alibi”; and another said capital punishment is “barbaric and uncivilized and an embarrassment to this country.”

Such approaches never would be appropriate in a death penalty trial, and Delucci was wise to dismiss them, the response says. Also, with peremptory challenges, or without needing to explain why, Geragos legally could have excused any of the jurors ultimately chosen, but he did not, the response says.

▪ Excluded testimony about a certified dog finding Laci Peterson’s scent at a Berkeley Marina pier. Geragos had referred to such evidence as “voodoo,” “nonsense” and the equivalent of “pin the tail on the donkey.”

The response counters that “there exists no stronger testament to (the dog’s) capabilities” than the fact the bodies came ashore not far away.

Besides, “the prosecution presented overwhelming evidence” of Peterson’s guilt, the document says, including his “highly suspicious behavior inconsistent with” that of a worried father-to-be. For example, Peterson subscribed to pornographic television programs less than two weeks after his wife disappeared; he sold her vehicle and considered selling their home less than a month later; he stopped mail from being sent to the home; and he used the bedroom they had converted into a nursery for storage.

“(He) knew Laci and Conner were not coming home,” the document says.

▪ Held all jurors to the same standard, rather than dismissing one for talking about evidence outside the courtroom, but not others.

Interviewed separately in the judge’s chamber, most jurors confirmed that the one to be dismissed seemed to relish attention from reporters and had repeatedly chatted about the trial and threatened to taint other jurors, the document says.

“(His) preoccupation with the media was a distraction,” the response reads, and “it was evident that (he) harbored a decided bias against the prosecution.” His “unrepentant attitude and pattern of misconduct” were far worse than other jurors’ unproved indiscretions, the document says.

▪ Allowed a defense video showing the defense team’s experiment of throwing a body overboard, which capsized the boat.

Delucci was wise to bar the video, the response contends, because conditions were different from those suspected in the Peterson case. For example, the boat in the experiment had a higher center of gravity and the man hefting a weighted dummy overboard seemed to try to tip it by leaning on the gunwale, or rim of the boat, the document says.

Also, the judge offered to let Geragos try another experiment with Peterson’s actual boat, with prosecutors watching this time, but Peterson’s camp declined.

Geragos had theorized that vagrants or men in a suspicious van must have killed Laci Peterson and framed her husband by putting her body where everyone knew he had been fishing. But authorities watching Scott Peterson proved that he visited the marina five times in five different rented vehicles as law enforcement officers searched the bay before the bodies were recovered, surmising that he was “checking to see if searchers were looking in the right place.”

Peterson’s attorneys will provide counterarguments as the next step in the appeals process.

Bee staff writer Garth Stapley can be reached at xxxxxxxx@xxxxx

From the prosecution brief

Excerpts from a California Supreme Court brief filed Jan. 26 by state prosecutors supporting the death penalty for Modesto’s Scott Peterson:

▪ When Laci disappeared on Christmas Eve, (Scott) was weeks away from a life-altering event: the birth of his first child – a responsibility that would last a lifetime. Or, so it seemed. During a conversation with (girlfriend Amber) Frey, (Scott) lamented that he had never enjoyed “a prolonged period of freedom from responsibility” in his life.

▪ (Scott’s) statement that he went fishing by himself on Christmas Eve was, indeed, a fish story.

▪ As the search for Laci and Conner expanded to include San Francisco Bay, (Scott) made repeated surreptitious trips to the Berkeley Marina in January 2003, driving a different vehicle every time. He never stopped to talk to anyone at the marina. As the prosecutor argued, (Scott) was checking to see if searchers were looking in the right place.

▪ The condition of the bodies suggested they had been in the bay for a matter of months, and Laci died while she was still carrying Conner. The forces of nature carrying Laci’s and Conner’s bodies ashore constituted unimpeachable evidence that (Scott) did not go to the bay to fish; he went to dispose of his pregnant wife’s body.

▪ One would reasonably expect that if (Scott) had truly been concerned about the disappearance of his wife and child, then he would take some action when he learned that the bodies of a woman and a baby were recovered. He did not. (Scott) never returned Sharon Rocha’s call about the discovery of the bodies.

▪ (Scott’s) penchant for lying was on a par with his unfailing dedication to self-interest. It was also corroborative of his guilt.

▪ There is no requirement that jurors be totally ignorant of the facts of a case, so long as they can lay aside their impressions and render an impartial verdict.

▪ No one, except for (Scott), knew exactly how he positioned Laci’s body in the boat, where he was in the boat, and how he maneuvered Laci’s body into the bay. Contrary to (Scott’s) suggestion, those circumstances mattered very little. What mattered was that, in the midst of his clandestine affair with another woman, (Scott) drove about three hours and 180 miles round-trip from Modesto to go “fishing” for about 45 minutes to an hour on San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve – in a recently purchased boat that he told no one about – on the day his pregnant wife went missing.

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/news/local/articl ... rylink=cpy
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby Desert Fox » Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:55 am

anonshy wrote:▪ No one, except for (Scott), knew exactly how he positioned Laci’s body in the boat, where he was in the boat, and how he maneuvered Laci’s body into the bay. Contrary to (Scott’s) suggestion, those circumstances mattered very little. What mattered was that, in the midst of his clandestine affair with another woman, (Scott) drove about three hours and 180 miles round-trip from Modesto to go “fishing” for about 45 minutes to an hour on San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve – in a recently purchased boat that he told no one about – on the day his pregnant wife went missing.


Pretty much the heart of the case
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:57 am

January 29, 2003
Interview with Diane Sawyer on ABC's Good Morning America

A portion of his taped January 28 interview aired on the following day.

Sawyer: What kind of marriage was it?

Peterson: God, the first word that comes to mind is, you know, glorious. I mean we took care of each other, very well. She was amazing. She is amazing.

The biggest blunder Peterson makes in this statement is that he speaks about his wife in the past tense. What this tells us is that Peterson knew his wife was dead at the time he gave this interview. He realizes what he has said so he corrects himself by referring to her in the present tense "she is amazing." We often see the same thing when a child disappears. Statistics say a family member is usually involved. Many of these cases are solved because a family member speaks about the missing kid in the past tense.

Sawyer: You haven't mentioned your son.

Peterson: Hmm. [Long pause] That was, it's so hard. I can't go in there. [Referring to the baby's room.] That door is closed until there's someone to put in there.

In talking about his unborn son, Peterson again uses the past tense, "That was." He does not finish his sentence so we do not know what he was thinking.

In talking about the baby's room, he refers to his son as "someone." That is very impersonal and distant. Although his baby had not yet been born, he and Laci had picked the name "Conner." We would expect him to use the baby's name or at least refer to him as "my son."

(We also know what he did to this room!)

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jul 11, 2017 9:46 am

KEMPLE: I, I was around that immediate, immediate area for just a little while, talking to other family members and other friends that had started arriving up towards their home. I went back over to Scott and I asked him where had he been, why was Laci down in the park by herself, where was he.

DISTASO: And when you asked him that, where did this, where did that conversation take place?

KEMPLE: Right there, on the same area as his driveway.

DISTASO: Okay. And was anyone around when you asked him that?

KEMPLE: Again, there was people around within feet of, of us standing there.

DISTASO: Okay. So same, same kind of thing, people milling about in the driveway, but was anyone else part of the conversation that you had with him?

KEMPLE: You know, I couldn't say that for a fact. No, I don't know. I really don't.

DISTASO: Okay. And what did he, where did he tell you he had been that day?

KEMPLE:He told me he went to play golf. And I said 'Golf.' And I immediately started heading back down to the park to find my brother that had been looking with me.

DISTASO: Okay. And at any time that night did Scott Peterson tell you that he had been fishing that day?

KEMPLE: I didn't,

DISTASO: Hold on. I want to get your memory of exactly just what he told you, not what someone else might have told you.

KEMPLE: No, he did not tell me that.
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Tue Jul 11, 2017 10:56 am

Some people are starting to pay attention to the information brought forward in the appeal documents. One of them is Garth Stapley who covered the trial for the Modesto Bee. In February 2017, he appeared in this podcast:

http://historypersonified.com/the-laci- ... th-stapley

Go to the link to upload the episode.

There's a very definite change Garth's point of view from when he covered the trial. He said the appeal is very much alive.  Pointed out that the judge allowed the dog scent evidence which is considered very unreliable and that the dog did not have a good track record.  Also mentioned juror who had been assaulted when pregnant who lied about this on her juror questionnaire.  Seemed to agree that anyone who wanted to frame Scott would have known where to put the body.  Searches in the bay with no results and then all of a sudden the bodies washed up.  Also mentioned defense theory about the age of the baby contrasted with the prosecution theory. .............Etc.
jane
 
Posts: 2562
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby anonshy » Tue Jul 11, 2017 3:24 pm

jane wrote:Some people are starting to pay attention to the information brought forward in the appeal documents. One of them is Garth Stapley who covered the trial for the Modesto Bee. In February 2017, he appeared in this podcast:

http://historypersonified.com/the-laci- ... th-stapley

Go to the link to upload the episode.

There's a very definite change Garth's point of view from when he covered the trial. He said the appeal is very much alive.  Pointed out that the judge allowed the dog scent evidence which is considered very unreliable and that the dog did not have a good track record.  Also mentioned juror who had been assaulted when pregnant who lied about this on her juror questionnaire.  Seemed to agree that anyone who wanted to frame Scott would have known where to put the body.  Searches in the bay with no results and then all of a sudden the bodies washed up.  Also mentioned defense theory about the age of the baby contrasted with the prosecution theory. .............Etc.


Very little National, Regional, or local coverage, and no change in public perception as to Peterson's Guilt. There may be some limited chatter in here but nothing of note in the media.

Anon
Half a clue plus half a clue does not equal a whole clue: it equals nothing!
anonshy
 
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:54 pm

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Thu Jul 13, 2017 5:32 am

I just came across this article from 2015. It's a very fair, in-depth look at the case.

January 25, 2015
by Lise LaSalle
American cases
Scott Peterson Was not Entitled to a Perfect Trial, but he Was Entitled to a Fair One – He Received Neither

http://thetroublewithjustice.com/2015/0 ... d-neither/

This site has articles about several American and Canadian wrongful conviction cases:

http://thetroublewithjustice.com/posts/
jane
 
Posts: 2562
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby jane » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:49 am

A&E Network to Premiere Original Limited Documentary Series 'The Murder of Laci Peterson' on Tuesday, August 15 at 10PM ET/PT

A&E NETWORK TO PREMIERE ORIGINAL LIMITED DOCUMENTARY SERIES
‘THE MURDER OF LACI PETERSON’
ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 15 AT 10PM ET/PT
SIX-EPISODE, NEW SERIES TAKES A FRESH LOOK AT THE SCOTT PETERSON TRIAL
TO DELIVER A DEFINITIVE FACTUAL ACCOUNT THROUGH UNPRECEDENTED ACCESS AND INTERVIEWS
FROM THOSE CLOSEST TO THE TRIAL INCLUDING SCOTT PETERSON

New York, NY – July 17, 2017 – A&E Network will premiere the new six-episode, limited documentary series, “The Murder of Laci Peterson” showcasing new interviews with Scott Peterson himself from prison.  The series explores the infamous Scott Peterson trial, the case that destroyed a family, gripped a nation and defined an era, as a vehicle for understanding America’s criminal justice system and the ways in which outside influences can affect that system.  “The Murder of Laci Peterson” is set to premiere Tuesday, August 15 at 10PM ET/PT on A&E.

“A&E is in the business of finding and uncovering the real stories behind some of the most impactful cultural moments that our audience hasn’t heard and ‘The Murder of Laci Peterson’ does exactly that,” said Elaine Frontain Bryant, Executive Vice President and Head of Programming, A&E Network.  “The media’s obsession with the Scott Peterson trial was unlike anything seen before.  This new series will cut through the mass hysteria that has plagued and distorted the reporting of this story to deliver, for the first time, a definitive factual account by those who lived and breathed it every day.”

The mystery of Laci Peterson’s disappearance on Christmas Eve 2002 captivated the nation.  Eight months pregnant, she vanished without a trace.  Her body and that of her unborn child, Conner, appeared four months later on the shores of the San Francisco Bay causing a media frenzy on both a local and national level.  To this day, no one knows exactly when, where or how she died, only that her husband Scott Peterson was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, despite the absence of DNA evidence or eyewitness testimony.  Scott Peterson’s conviction was less a tribute to the efficacy of the legal system than it was a case study for the overwhelming power of modern media to deliver the facts of news in a way that creates irresistible tabloid fodder.
  
As the 15th Anniversary of Laci Peterson’s disappearance approaches, “The Murder of Laci Peterson” takes a fresh, new look at the case, reexamining the circumstantial evidence and assessing the media’s influence on the case and its outcome......

http://www.aenetworks.com/article/ae-ne ... day-august

http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/arti ... N-20170717
jane
 
Posts: 2562
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby lsmith510 » Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:41 pm

jane wrote:A&E Network to Premiere Original Limited Documentary Series 'The Murder of Laci Peterson' on Tuesday, August 15 at 10PM ET/PT

A&E NETWORK TO PREMIERE ORIGINAL LIMITED DOCUMENTARY SERIES
‘THE MURDER OF LACI PETERSON’
ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 15 AT 10PM ET/PT
SIX-EPISODE, NEW SERIES TAKES A FRESH LOOK AT THE SCOTT PETERSON TRIAL
TO DELIVER A DEFINITIVE FACTUAL ACCOUNT THROUGH UNPRECEDENTED ACCESS AND INTERVIEWS
FROM THOSE CLOSEST TO THE TRIAL INCLUDING SCOTT PETERSON

New York, NY – July 17, 2017 – A&E Network will premiere the new six-episode, limited documentary series, “The Murder of Laci Peterson” showcasing new interviews with Scott Peterson himself from prison.  The series explores the infamous Scott Peterson trial, the case that destroyed a family, gripped a nation and defined an era, as a vehicle for understanding America’s criminal justice system and the ways in which outside influences can affect that system.  “The Murder of Laci Peterson” is set to premiere Tuesday, August 15 at 10PM ET/PT on A&E.

“A&E is in the business of finding and uncovering the real stories behind some of the most impactful cultural moments that our audience hasn’t heard and ‘The Murder of Laci Peterson’ does exactly that,” said Elaine Frontain Bryant, Executive Vice President and Head of Programming, A&E Network.  “The media’s obsession with the Scott Peterson trial was unlike anything seen before.  This new series will cut through the mass hysteria that has plagued and distorted the reporting of this story to deliver, for the first time, a definitive factual account by those who lived and breathed it every day.”

The mystery of Laci Peterson’s disappearance on Christmas Eve 2002 captivated the nation.  Eight months pregnant, she vanished without a trace.  Her body and that of her unborn child, Conner, appeared four months later on the shores of the San Francisco Bay causing a media frenzy on both a local and national level.  To this day, no one knows exactly when, where or how she died, only that her husband Scott Peterson was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, despite the absence of DNA evidence or eyewitness testimony.  Scott Peterson’s conviction was less a tribute to the efficacy of the legal system than it was a case study for the overwhelming power of modern media to deliver the facts of news in a way that creates irresistible tabloid fodder.
  
As the 15th Anniversary of Laci Peterson’s disappearance approaches, “The Murder of Laci Peterson” takes a fresh, new look at the case, reexamining the circumstantial evidence and assessing the media’s influence on the case and its outcome......

http://www.aenetworks.com/article/ae-ne ... day-august

http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/arti ... N-20170717

:bop:
What's this? NATIONAL news coverage, proof that the Petersons are still working tirelessly to free Scott and find the real killers and a six part docuseries at that! Jackpot! :::thumbs up:::
lsmith510
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:55 am

Re: Scott Peterson

Postby ScifiTom » Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:32 am

jane wrote:A&E Network to Premiere Original Limited Documentary Series 'The Murder of Laci Peterson' on Tuesday, August 15 at 10PM ET/PT

A&E NETWORK TO PREMIERE ORIGINAL LIMITED DOCUMENTARY SERIES
‘THE MURDER OF LACI PETERSON’
ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 15 AT 10PM ET/PT
SIX-EPISODE, NEW SERIES TAKES A FRESH LOOK AT THE SCOTT PETERSON TRIAL
TO DELIVER A DEFINITIVE FACTUAL ACCOUNT THROUGH UNPRECEDENTED ACCESS AND INTERVIEWS
FROM THOSE CLOSEST TO THE TRIAL INCLUDING SCOTT PETERSON

New York, NY – July 17, 2017 – A&E Network will premiere the new six-episode, limited documentary series, “The Murder of Laci Peterson” showcasing new interviews with Scott Peterson himself from prison.  The series explores the infamous Scott Peterson trial, the case that destroyed a family, gripped a nation and defined an era, as a vehicle for understanding America’s criminal justice system and the ways in which outside influences can affect that system.  “The Murder of Laci Peterson” is set to premiere Tuesday, August 15 at 10PM ET/PT on A&E.

“A&E is in the business of finding and uncovering the real stories behind some of the most impactful cultural moments that our audience hasn’t heard and ‘The Murder of Laci Peterson’ does exactly that,” said Elaine Frontain Bryant, Executive Vice President and Head of Programming, A&E Network.  “The media’s obsession with the Scott Peterson trial was unlike anything seen before.  This new series will cut through the mass hysteria that has plagued and distorted the reporting of this story to deliver, for the first time, a definitive factual account by those who lived and breathed it every day.”

The mystery of Laci Peterson’s disappearance on Christmas Eve 2002 captivated the nation.  Eight months pregnant, she vanished without a trace.  Her body and that of her unborn child, Conner, appeared four months later on the shores of the San Francisco Bay causing a media frenzy on both a local and national level.  To this day, no one knows exactly when, where or how she died, only that her husband Scott Peterson was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, despite the absence of DNA evidence or eyewitness testimony.  Scott Peterson’s conviction was less a tribute to the efficacy of the legal system than it was a case study for the overwhelming power of modern media to deliver the facts of news in a way that creates irresistible tabloid fodder.
  
As the 15th Anniversary of Laci Peterson’s disappearance approaches, “The Murder of Laci Peterson” takes a fresh, new look at the case, reexamining the circumstantial evidence and assessing the media’s influence on the case and its outcome......

http://www.aenetworks.com/article/ae-ne ... day-august

http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/arti ... N-20170717


To Jane

Thanks Jane for the information and course I am willing to look forward of watching this, and I had put this on my calendar and thanks for the head up and for sure I will watch it, and talk to you soon Jane!!!
TMJ

Anne Hathaway number 1 fan

Blankit Injustice 5, Sarah Johnson ID, Kirstin Lobato NV, Scott Peterson CA, Michael Skakel CT and Dusty Turner VA
User avatar
ScifiTom
 
Posts: 4430
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:58 am
Location: Norfolk Va

Previous

Return to Possible Wrongful Convictions: Member Submissions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests