It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Garagos seeks donations to find "Real Killers" of Laci

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Can you believe this. Mark Garagos, Scott Peterson's lawyer, has started a website soliciting donations to hire private investigators to find the "real killers" of Laci Peterson. Come on Mark! You sat next to the real killer for months! The site can be found at www.petersoninvestigation.com. They don't give an e-mail address for our comments on the site but the ever-self promoting Garagos does have a link to his firm's site where comments can be made. Remember, this is the same lawyer who couldn't even get a shoplifting actress off!
:




posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Garagos is a very smart man. He is doing what ever it takes to get his man off, not that its going to work. Good try.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   
The real killer is probably at the same golf club as Nicole Simpson's "real killer"...



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
The real killer is probably at the same golf club as Nicole Simpson's "real killer"...


LOL!!! I was just going to say that!

Real killer must be a die-hard golfer, since OJ's golfing all the time....



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
This is a lot more than OJ did to find the real killers. In fact, OJ appears not to have had a cogent thought in the last ten years.

Check out this story about Kirk Bloodsworth who was convicted, not once, but twice, of the same crime based upon circumstantial evidence.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 04/12/20 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Garagos was a fool to take the case in the first place. Number 1 - As a talking head on the news shows before he took the case all he did was trash Peterson and say he didn't have a chance. Number 2 - He was always known as a plea bargain attorney, not one that could go the distance in a trial. Number 3 - He had never tried a capital case before. Quite frankly, he's not bright enough to be a capital casr attorney. Number 4 - He took the case to feed his ego - pure and simple! And it backfired!

The only difference between Nicole's killer and Laci's killer is that one is walking free and the other is where he belongs - behind bars. One thing in common between Laci and Nicole's killers is that we all know who they are!



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 03:33 PM
link   
There are several things about this trial that just don't sit right.

I could make a list but to boil it down, I think there is definitely a "reasonable doubt" as to his Guilt and I cant believe they gave the death penalty on no more evidence than they had. And this is coming from a dyed in the wool capital punishment man. I don't see how they convicted him much less gave him the Death Penalty



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   
IMO, the state put on an airtight case. There's a big difference between reasonable doubt and absolute certainty. I followed the case closely, and, in my mind, there's no doubt that he did it. It's not based on one item but rather, the totality of the evidence - which was overwhelming. Then too, while I may say I'm convinced he's guilty and you may say there's something that doesn't sit right, the people in the best position to make the determination are the jurors that sat through all of the testimony. For the most part, the system works well. That is unless Judge Ito is presiding!
BTW - I don't agree with the death sentence! Even though I'm sure he did it, that's still just state sponsored murder!



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   

I think there is definitely a "reasonable doubt" as to his Guilt and I cant believe they gave the death penalty on no more evidence than they had. And this is coming from a dyed in the wool capital punishment man. I don't see how they convicted him much less gave him the Death Penalty


I agree. Remember, we saw FAR more than the jury did... Based on what the jury saw, he should have walked.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he didn't. But at the same time, it scares me that emotion overrode law in convicting him.

I've seen this first hand in court, and it's a prime example that our system, while pretty good, still has some serious flaws when it comes to common sense...



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he didn't. But at the same time, it scares me that emotion overrode law in convicting him.


I agree, to be honest I think he is guilty as hell but I don't believe the State came even close to proving it. From the evidence that I have heard and read I would have had to vote not guilty because we are supposed to decide on the facts not on "feelings" This case was short on the former and long on the latter.

To me about the only thing they proved was that he was a lying cheating dog that should have been kicked to the curb a long time ago. But that doesn't prove he killed anyone.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by CommonSense
Remember, this is the same lawyer who couldn't even get a shoplifting actress off!


I saw the surveillance tapes of Ryder stealing clothes. It was painfully obvious that she was so doped up she had no idea what she was doing. She's lucky she didn't get the book thrown at her.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 12:03 AM
link   
After seeing a show on TV the other night about the trial I feel he absolutely should have walked. Laci saw two men that broke into a house across the street. Ok right there is the motive for someone else to do something to her. And Scott supposedly kills her and takes her out in a little boat in broad daylight in the middle of rough weather but manages to transport her in the boat without her being scene even though he was witnessed by other people struggling to get the boat in the water but nothing unusual was noticed. With people around he goes out and dumps her. Yet nothing was seen. There is absolutely no evidence he did a thing. And there is all kinds of reasonable doubt. I can't have faith in a system like that.

Heck we had a guy here that just got convicted of murdering his wife. Yet they haven't found a body, weapon, or ANY kind of physical evidence. Absolutely no forensics to back it up.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 03:05 AM
link   
I don't know if Peterson is guilty or innocent - feels like he's guilty ... I agree there wasn't enough real evidence to sentence him to death.

Peterson was arrested after the bodies of the victims washed up to shore 4 months after Laci's dissappearance - Laci's headless, limbless torso was badly decomposed but her uterus was intact. The baby was much better preserved.

Garagos basically offered the theory that Laci was killed by a cult perhaps that went after pregnant women for their babies - that the baby was born alive, Laci was killed and dumped, that the baby was dumped later. The witness that Garagos wanted to use to testify that she saw a brown van, 2 people having a tangle with Laci etc. was not allowed in court due to some technicality.

The argument to Garagos' theory was that if Laci was killed by someone else for the baby, her uterus would have been cut, not intact, that the baby's body was found much better preserved because it was protected from marine elements as it was in the uterus for a long time and then expelled.

The more you read about the circumstantial evidence the more sinister it feels.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 12:01 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by c_au
Garagos basically offered the theory that Laci was killed by a cult perhaps that went after pregnant women for their babies - that the baby was born alive, Laci was killed and dumped, that the baby was dumped later. The witness that Garagos wanted to use to testify that she saw a brown van, 2 people having a tangle with Laci etc. was not allowed in court due to some technicality.


The technicality was simply that the whole story was a red herring. There was no proof to it. The claims could not be substantiated. The defense can't simply make things up in order to try and create some type of doubt. In fact, it's illegal for an attorney to knowingly present false evidence.



posted on Dec, 21 2004 @ 12:14 PM
link   
I'm speculating that...
Garagos probably started the web site out of guilt for not producing the evidence he promised after taking Petersons parents money. They are probably furious at Garagos and believe thier son is innocent. They are probably accusing Garagos of not trying hard enough to produce evidence during the trial, being distracted by MJ, and all.

This is probably Garagos' attempt to find it and help save SP's rear during the appeal...does he still represent SP during the appeal process???

I think the jury found him guilty because he is.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I think you're right Cherish. Geragos really blew it. After all his talking head spots on cable news before taking the case, he should have just stayed away from it. Too bad he took the case - if he hadn't he would probably still be Michael Jackson's lawyer.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
didn't oj's website have the same thing at the bottom of it ... "help find their killers, please donate"

www.askoj.com

The sadness of it all.... I hate when innocent people get murdered and # sticks like this get away with it and make a mockery out of their deaths by asking for donations to help find their killers...

So I guess we would be sending money to them?? gawd.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by c_au
I don't know if Peterson is guilty or innocent - feels like he's guilty ... I agree there wasn't enough real evidence to sentence him to death.

Peterson was arrested after the bodies of the victims washed up to shore 4 months after Laci's dissappearance - Laci's headless, limbless torso was badly decomposed but her uterus was intact. The baby was much better preserved.

Garagos basically offered the theory that Laci was killed by a cult perhaps that went after pregnant women for their babies - that the baby was born alive, Laci was killed and dumped, that the baby was dumped later. The witness that Garagos wanted to use to testify that she saw a brown van, 2 people having a tangle with Laci etc. was not allowed in court due to some technicality.

The argument to Garagos' theory was that if Laci was killed by someone else for the baby, her uterus would have been cut, not intact, that the baby's body was found much better preserved because it was protected from marine elements as it was in the uterus for a long time and then expelled.

The more you read about the circumstantial evidence the more sinister it feels.



Just because Garagos floated a bad idea doesn't prove Scott's built. Ok she was found headless and limbless. This makes his guilt LESS likely. I've seen enough of these Iraq videos to know what kind of a mess that would make. There would be blood. Something. I've seen enough to know that blood can still be seen even after a murder scene has been cleaned. Remember the mess with OJ? There was blood everywhere. I didn't think he was guilty before. Knowing this about the body I would say there is no chance he did it.



posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Indy,
No one ever claimed he dismembered the body. The fact is the head and limbs were lost due to the time spent in the water and scavengers tearing at the body. This is also why the baby's body was in much better shape. It was protected by Laci's womb until even that was torn apart.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join