home

Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson

Newsweek has Mark Geragos' first interview about his client Scott Peterson since his conviction. And yes, he does believe Scott is "stone cold innocent." Best line,

What was it like to represent the most reviled defendant in America?

At least O.J. had his constituency.

Geragos makes a point we often make here: Guilt sells in America. As I pointed out the day of the death verdict in the Peterson case, (see comments):

This case has been driven by a total lynch mob mentality since day one. Guilt sells in America.

A quick wrap-up, also from the comments:

yes it was a totally circumstantial case. No cause of death, no time of death, no murder weapon, no evidence as to how she was killed, no identifiable crime scene, no eyewitnesses, no confessions. Nada.

There was a hair in a pair of pliers in the boat but hair is so easily transferred it does not support a conclusion that she was on the boat.

Everyone in America knew Scott Peterson's alibi was that he was fishing in the bay within a few days of her disappearance. It would be a logical place for the killer to dump the body, thereby framing Scott. In fact, that was Geragos argument, but the jury didn't buy it.

Geragos refuted every piece of evidence introduced--from the faulty cell phone towers that said Peterson was in the neighborhood after the time he said he left to the cement in his warehouse which matched the cement at his home that had been bought for a home improvement project.

The prosecution changed its motive theory repeatedly...it was money, it was Amber, it was loving the bachelor life.

Need further proof? Nancy Grace's weeks-old show on CNN's headline news (does anyone watch this channel unless they are stuck at the airport or in a hotel room?) is already a ratings success.

Luckily for her bosses, she’s also raising ratings. “Nancy Grace Premiere Week” goosed the longtime ratings laggard Headline News by 81% in the 8 p.m. (ET) timeslot and outpaced Keith Olbermann’s Countdown on MSNBC.

TV Newser reports:

In total viewers, Nancy Grace tied Paula Zahn on Monday night, according to Nielsen data. Here are the raw numbers:

Zahn: 0.5 / 443,000 HH / 549,000 P2+ / 218,000 25-54
Grace: 0.4 / 350,000 HH / 549,000 P2+ / 209,000 25-54
Olbermann: 0.2 / 179,000 HH / 180,000 P2+ / 48,000 25-54

A review:

To be sure, there are important issues raging in the courtrooms. The president made tort reform a national issue. In California, the governor wants judges to redistrict the state. The U.S. Senate is poised to reconsider potential conservative judicial activists nominated by Bush. The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing two cases on eminent domain that have profound implications.

Grace, however, is far more interested in the case of a teenager in Idaho charged with killing both her parents. "This girl, she's the devil's seed," proclaims Grace. On one show, we are treated to three identical live shots of the cemetery in which the parents were buried, while violins and piano music play in the background.

What makes this preference for the tawdry even harder to take is Grace's own approach to crime: a combination of sob sister and hanging judge. When a Fort Worth, Texas, mother and child disappear -- or in Grace's parlance, "went missing" -- she asks, "Who would want to hurt a seven-month pregnant woman like Lisa?" Later, showing a picture of the two, she adds: "Look at that little face. They are out there somewhere tonight." Turns out, they weren't, which was duly noted during the news hour that followed Grace. "When will it end?" Grace asked after reporting on a teacher accused of having sex with a teenager. When indeed?

< Secret Government | Group Calls for Investigation of Bush's Fake News >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 01:30:15 PM EST
    It's up to the person in the black robe to control the courtroom so that infotainment does not walk all over our fragile justice system. The system is designed to let the prsumably guilty walk if the State does not meet the burden of proof. The reason for that is that the founding guys and gals thought that it was really important that our justice system not imprison the occasional innocent person. Now explain all this to Peterson or the guy just released from Angola after 24 years. Physical evidence. That's the ticket. Eyewitness testimony is remarkably inaccurate, but so persuasive to a jury.

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 02:07:38 PM EST
    It's unfortunate that the jury decided Mr Peterson is "Stone Cold Guilty!!!"

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 02:10:37 PM EST
    "constituency"? And Jeff Gannon had a "reader base"? And Karen Hughes has "foreign policy experience"?

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#4)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 03:01:36 PM EST
    Brilliant observation, Kalia. Vote Republican often?

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 04:26:19 PM EST
    Scar, Are you suggesting that Mr. Peterson is innocent? Are you also still waiting for OJ to find the real killers? And what does any of this have to do with political persuasion?

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#7)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 05:00:11 PM EST
    "Scar, Are you suggesting that Mr. Peterson is innocent?" I hardly think the notion is beyond the pale, given that there is no evidence. My personal opinion? I wouldn't turn my back on that creep. I was just pointing out the content-free nature of Kalia's post.

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 05:34:17 PM EST
    Scar, "Vote Republican often?" And this was a comment on the "content-free nature" of Kalia's post, how?

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#9)
    by wishful on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 06:43:32 PM EST
    This all goes back to the functional definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt" used by a jury. Having teevee and internet and newspaper reports as my only input, the prosecution's case seemed to be, to borrow from scar, of an evidence-free nature wrt proving guilt BRD. Is the BRD jury instruction set somehow, or do judges get to be extemporaneous in this? Lawyers?

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 13, 2005 at 08:44:21 PM EST
    Why should we believe Peterson is innocent just because Geragos says so? Why does someone have to be a Republican to believe Peterson is guilty? [remainder deleted for offensive language, this commenter is limited to four comments a day. All in excess will be deleted.]

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 06:59:57 AM EST
    There was no "offensive language" in my post. You are censoring ideas that you disagree with. Feel free to do that -- it is your blog. But don't pretend I used "offensive language."

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:03:01 AM EST
    "offensive language."
    hard to define, quite true, "but i know it when i see it."

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:33:20 AM EST
    Lynch mobs led by the likes of Nancy Grace --her use of victim status, her pose as a crusader and her unrelenting willingness to be a 'ho for the prosecution of any crimes plays right into media driven public opinion. And while I really don't believe in the concept of hell --if there is one she is going there for her role in driving the criminal justice system back to the dark ages.

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 08:56:25 AM EST
    It's important to remember that Nancy Grace is not a journalist any more than the she pundit with long blond hair. These people are entertainers, period. Grace does not "report" the "news" or have the credentials to pretend to do so. Heck, she's a lawyer, and an ex-prosecutor at that. She has made a career out of advocating for conviction and the whole point of her show is to be biased, not "fair and balanced." Do not expect her show to be anything but entertainment (not even infotainment.)

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dusty on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 09:47:01 AM EST
    Of course he was always going to be found guilty, if he was found innocent they would not be able to televise the retrial.

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 10:16:03 AM EST
    Bottom line, the burden of proof was not met, he should have gone free. I take no joy in that, except the joy of living in a country where 100 guilty men go free to prevent one innocent man from being punished. Or so I thought.

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#16)
    by Sailor on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:12:45 PM EST
    Not only is Nancy Grace not a journalist, she shouldn't even be a lawyer, re:Carr v. State, 267 Ga. 701, 482 S.E.2d 314 (1997) "Our review of the record supports Carr's contention that the prosecuting attorney engaged in an extensive pattern of inappropriate and, in some cases, illegal conduct in the course of the trial." Grace was the prosecutor.

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:51:50 PM EST
    These were my words, not Geragos': "there was no physical evidence, no cause of death, no time of death, no murder weapon, no evidence as to how she was killed, no identifiable crime scene, no eyewitnesses, no confessions."

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:52:40 PM EST
    I read the whole evidentiary history and summaries of the daily events of the Scott Peterson trial. Scott Peterson is stone cold innocent. The legal system is broken in this country and this trial proves that statement. As Geragos said, there was no physical evidence, no cause of death, no time of death, no murder weapon, no evidence as to how she was killed, no identifiable crime scene, no eyewitnesses, no confessions. In a word this was an event staged solely for the gratification of the California Criminal Justice System at the expense of an innocent man. I suggest that all of you visit the various Innocence Project websites to read cases similar to Scott Peterson's where DNA evidence proved death row felons to be stone cold innocent as well: [links deleted, not in html format]

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 05:44:44 PM EST
    Sailor, Nice case cite. I had a look and even though the conviction was reversed on other grounds, the section it dealing with her conduct is telling. Don't you just love how this loathsome *** has become so popular?

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 07:37:48 PM EST
    Well, how about it, Nancy Grace. You want to explain Carr v. State? If there is one thing that a bunch of people who are on this blog regularly it's a prosecutor who engages in unethical conduct such as failing discovery, hiding exculpatory evidence, etc.

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 06:37:10 AM EST
    I guess we are not going to hear back from Nancy Grace. Geragos is still correct. No matter what we think of Peterson the prosecutor had a very weak case once character assassination of an unsavory character is off the table.

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 09:22:05 PM EST
    The trial was a sham and the judge and jury were fools!!!!!!!!!!! The judge should have stayed in retirement like other old fools, and the jury needs to examine the statement innocent until proven guilty.. A special message to the press, stop focusing on this strawberry short cake white trash lady... she lives in east palo alto which is like the arm pit of the earth. She probably sells and uses meth in between her jobs as a hooker...

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 17, 2005 at 09:29:11 PM EST
    This was a perversion of the legal system... Scott might be guilty but the court system railroaded him.. the had no evidence. I was amazing this case went to trial..the jury was sold on hate.. the Judge is over the hill and foolish... the police were worthless... Steve in Missouri

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 06:03:29 AM EST
    Nancy Grace is the crime victims answer to Don Corleone in drag. As "Attila the Hen" she has missed her calling as a vigilante. For Nancy Grace, justice is blind reprisal

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 06:05:00 AM EST
    Nancy Grace is about as informative as used toilet paper. After you're done with either one of them, you end up looking at the same thing.

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 06:23:49 AM EST
    I believe the peterson trial was sabatoged from the begining. I mean look at Robert Blake, a man who some say tried to hire someone to kill his wife and she ends up dead. There was no real evidence pointing to him and he walks away. SHows how the system works.Peterson should have walked away. No evidence here either. Yes he had an affair that does not mean he killed his wife. I feel empathy for the Rocha family~ and sorry for Scott because he was convicted by the people for having an affair when his wife was pregnant. That does not mean he killed her. Maybe oneday they will find the real killer, but I dont believe it was Scott.

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 19, 2005 at 06:30:32 AM EST
    Who hated Scott so much that they would take so many chances to bury Laci just where he was fishing? According to his parents he is the most loved and adored person.. Please! The only person Scott loves is himself. Quilty Quilty Quilty. FRY SCOTT FRY

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 07:25:25 PM EST
    Scott Peterson is a very sick man. I would not be surprised if he had not killed befor.He will not suffer for what he has done ,he has no consence He is the devil, and has no soul. I am so thankful that he is locked up and can't get to any one else. It is just to bad that the men can't get to him and make him their babe.

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Mar 20, 2005 at 07:55:52 PM EST
    what lynch mob mentality?

    Re: Geragos Interview Re: Scott Peterson (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 21, 2005 at 04:41:35 AM EST
    I'm posting from Europe. In the country which I'm living, there was no coverage of the Peterson case and therefore I wasn't saturated with the negative media that you people were. I checked out the case, (in fact it took me several weeks if not more to thoroughly research) and was I able to make my own decision as to SPs guilt. I still have yet to find evidence to convince me of this mans guilt. Apart from the fact that an innocent man sits on death row, what worries me most about this case is the jurors and witnesses who stand to benefit from a guilty verdict in a case. Without a guilty verdict would AF had a book on the bestseller list? Would the jurors be fighting over book deals as they are today? Mmm... seems to me that being picked for jury service in a high profile case is an easy way to line your pockets! Better keep looking over your shoulders at your judicial system, Americans - next time it could be you sitting up there accused...