STORM2K

MODESTO, Calif., May 5 — Scott Peterson’s new attorney said Monday that he intends to go beyond the legal requirement of demonstrating “reasonable doubt” that his client killed his pregnant wife, Laci, and will seek to determine who actually killed her and the couple’s unborn child.
“WE’RE NOT INTO arguing ‘reasonable doubt’ in this case,” high-profile defense lawyer Mark Geragos told reporters after a hearing in the homicide case. “We’ve set the bar extremely high, and that’s to prove that Scott is not only factually innocent, but to figure out exactly who it is (that) did this horrible thing to Scott’s wife and to Scott’s son.”
Geragos was joined at the brief news conference outside Stanislaus County Superior Court by the defendant’s parents, Lee and Jackie.
“Our son is innocent ... and we feel the truth will come out,” Jackie Peterson said.
Geragos, a prominent Los Angeles lawyer who has represented celebrities and served as a television commentator in coverage of Laci Peterson’s death, announced that he would defend Scott Peterson, replacing two public defenders assigned to the case on April 21 when Peterson said he couldn’t afford a lawyer.

after all, OJ still hasn't been able to find his wife's "real killer" yet

Steve

I was thinking the same thing - "where have I heard that one before...?"

IMO, the defensive did find the killer - it's Scott!

Stephanie wrote:I was thinking the same thing - "where have I heard that one before...?"

IMO, the defensive did find the killer - it's Scott!

Hmmmm... very interesting indeed. I believe that this attorney has read through ALL those documents and has found evidence to support another killer. He could have also had his wife killed as OJ did.

I believe that OJ had his wife killed because of the nature of the crime. The DA did not go after that fact in the courtroom which is why OJ was acquitted.

So actually OJ did not kill his wife but should have been brought up on charges of "conspiracy to committ murder" THAT is why the family of Nicole won the civil suit.

It makes {at least a bit of} sense that a portion of the documents may have some evidence that doesn't link Scott to this awful crime. Defense Attorney Mark Geragos was so adament on "On the Record with Greta van Susteren" just in recent days, saying that it would be hard for Scott to innocent.

Well money talks. And now that Geragos is Scott's defense attorney he is going to make Scott look like an alter boy. His job is to get Scott off the hookand now he is going to do anything to do that. My opinion of Geragos has changed drastically. I use to respect him but I am beginning to feel different. I saw him on all of those talk shows saying how Scott was "hanging" himself and now all of a sudden Scott is innocent. Like I said before, money talks. I could never defend a person I believed to be guilty of a crime. And I do believe Scott is guilty. JMO!!!

I agree Bonnie. I could never be a defense attorney. Prosecutor is an entirely different matter!

Sounds like a "smoke and mirrors" defensive strategy to me...if he is serious about finding the "real killer", al he need do is look at the guy seated next to him in the courtroom.

We are finding him guilty through the media. Not one of us knows what evidence they have or what they do not. Any circumstantial evidence being played through the media is guilt. Public opinion does not matter EVIDENCE does.

Do they have the death penalty in Calif? If they do why did OJ get away with it? And the Menendez Brothers Get away with it? I feel also that Robert Blake will get away from killing his wife. And the Recent Phil Spector case will be the same thing.

No doubt most of us assume he's guilty. I feel that way too. But we must hear the evidence. It sounds like this lawyer is going to turn this into a circus rather than just force the prosecution to prove the case. This lawyer is seeking fame, IMO.

Lindaloo wrote:We are finding him guilty through the media. Not one of us knows what evidence they have or what they do not. Any circumstantial evidence being played through the media is guilt. Public opinion does not matter EVIDENCE does.

I think that there's a difference between forming an opinion and convicting him. Admittedly we are forming opinions based on partial information and intuition. Haaving lost a child late in the last trimester, I can't help but draw conclusions from his public reactions. His actions just have not been within what I consider norms. It will be interesting to see hwat evidence comes out in the trial.

Sorry for your loss Marshall. IMO.. he is guilty based on his reactions to both deaths. We are not behind closed doors with him in private. The media only shows us what they want us to see.

Bill said it best though... this is going to be turned into a "circus" by the media, prosecutors and the defense. I have NO faith in the California court systems or their prosecutors and their "slam dunk" cases either.

Lindaloo wrote:We are finding him guilty through the media. Not one of us knows what evidence they have or what they do not. Any circumstantial evidence being played through the media is guilt. Public opinion does not matter EVIDENCE does.

Your right evidence does matter and if I was on the jury my opinion may be swayed based upon what the testimony and evidence is.

The only way we get information is through the media. It may be slanted, it may be that there's information that hasn't been provided to them yet to report. That information would be whatever evidence will be used to convict or prove Scott not-guilty.