Laci--More on New Evidence 8/7
Maggie
Plastic tarp and duct tape are tested for links to body
Prosecutors didn't know of park police's suspicions until this week
Stacy Finz, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, August 7, 2004
Plastic sheeting and duct tape found near Laci Peterson's remains in April 2003
are being examined for fingerprints and the victim's fluids, after East Bay
Regional Park District police revealed to prosecutors this week that the tarp
had smelled like a dead body, according to sources close to the case.
The plastic, which has also been described as a large, clear bag with the
manufacturer's emblem "Target Products" printed on it, was collected by
investigators. But it was never tested to determine whether it could have been
used to dispose of the eight-months-pregnant woman -- even though investigators
first on the scene thought it was a good possibility, according to sources.
Prosecutors say Laci Peterson's body was tossed into San Francisco Bay and
weighted down with concrete anchors. The chance that she was wrapped in the
tarp, which was totally intact with no tears, could contradict the
prosecution's theory.
On Thursday, Judge Alfred Delucchi, who is presiding over Scott Peterson's
double-murder case in Redwood City, suspended the trial until Tuesday so that
fingerprint and fluid analyses could be conducted, according to the sources.
The ruling came after a closed hearing in the judge's chambers.
Prosecutors called the meeting, sources believe, to alert the defense that
while prepping the regional park police for testimony earlier this week the
officers divulged for the first time that the plastic sheet had a death odor.
But sources said the officers told Modesto detectives their observations back
in April 2003, when they discovered Laci Peterson's decomposing body and the
plastic on the Richmond shoreline. But the information apparently was never
documented in a police report.
Geragos has repeatedly accused the prosecution and Modesto police of hiding
evidence that could help clear the 31-year-old former Modesto fertilizer
salesman of charges that he murdered his wife and the couple's unborn child.
Furthermore, Geragos says investigators were so quick to latch onto a theory
implicating Peterson that they didn't bother to look at anything that pointed
to another suspect. But on Thursday, Geragos said that the new development in
the case could cast enough doubt on Peterson's guilt to free him. Citing the
court-imposed gag order, the defense attorney refused to discuss the case
further.
John Goold, Stanislaus County's chief deputy district attorney and spokesman
for the office, said he too couldn't comment because of the gag order.
It's unclear whether the tests on the items will be completed by Tuesday.
There also is some question about whether the tape and tarp are too badly
contaminated from the salty bay water to net results. Still, said one source,
the possibility remains that fingerprints could be found by pulling back the
adhesive on the gray, shiny duct tape that was attached to the plastic
sheeting. A similar piece of tape was stuck to Laci Peterson's pant leg.
Sources said investigators did run forensic tests early on to compare the tape
on the plastic with the tape on the pants and found that they came from two
different rolls. That could be why authorities decided not to further pursue a
costly examination of the tarp.
Modesto detectives originally seemed excited by the discovery of the plastic
sheet, believing that the "Target Products" insignia traced back to a Modesto
company, according to one person familiar with the case. It turns out, however,
that the plastic is actually used by a Canadian firm to ship building
materials. Apparently, similar bags were found at the Richmond-San Rafael
Bridge, which is undergoing major reconstruction.
Prosecutors say Peterson killed his 27-year-old wife at their Modesto home
either on the night of Dec. 23, 2002, or in the early-morning hours of Dec. 24,
2002. He then, they say, drove her body to the Berkeley Marina, went out on the
bay in his fishing boat and threw her overboard. They maintain that Peterson
had tired of Laci in favor of his new girlfriend, Amber Frey, and didn't want
children.
Frey is scheduled to take the stand for the prosecution next week. She is
expected to testify that Peterson lied to her that he "lost his wife," weeks
before Laci Peterson actually disappeared and of telling her that this would be
his first Christmas alone. Prosecutors are likely to play police tape
recordings of the couple's conversations to show that while hundreds of
investigators and volunteers searched for Laci Peterson, Scott was trying to
woo his secret lover.
Peterson has conceded to the affair, but denies that he had anything to do
with the deaths of his wife and unborn child. Geragos says police overlooked
several people who could have been involved in Laci Peterson's disappearance,
including a woman who burglarized the couple's home shortly after the Modesto
woman vanished and some suspicious men driving a van in the area.
If Peterson is convicted of double murder, the jury will have to decide
whether he should be executed or spend the rest of his life in prison.
What's next
The investigation:
Attorneys and the judge are awaiting the results of tests on plastic and duct
tape for Laci Peterson's bodily fluids and for fingerprints.
The case: The trial will resume on Tuesday, and Scott Peterson's ex-lover
Amber Frey is expected to take the stand.
E-mail Stacy Finz at sf...@sfchronicle.com.
Maggie
"Nancy, if you were 8 1/2 months pregnant and I was married to you, I'd be
going fishing Christmas Eve." -- Mark Geragos, to Nancy Grace on LKL
circe
wrote:
This answers my question about why they didn't test this further
earlier. This seems more and more like a defense shot in the dark,
but I can see why they want to test it.
circe
Volfie
"circe" <ci...@ameritech.net> wrote
> This answers my question about why they didn't test this further
> earlier. This seems more and more like a defense shot in the dark,
> but I can see why they want to test it.
Gee, that brings up a question: if they find Snotty's fingerprints all over
that duct tape, does Geragos have to tell the DA?
Giselle (or does discovery only work one way?)
Alan Street
<vol...@ccrtc.com> wrote:
No, he doesn't, and yes, it does (remember, the state has the burden of
proving guilt, not the other way around. Also, there's a little thing
called the 5th amendment).
circe
I'm thinking he probably asked Scott before bringing it up to the
judge if that was a possibility, so there probably won't be any
surprises of that kind.
circe
njs
"Alan Street" <agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:070820040918555938%agstreet@nonono_san.rr.com...
that's why the defense is all atwitter. They'll test something with her body
fluids, and it will be some item or material that couldn't possibly have
come from Scott. The thing is, there are probably 800 different little
things that washed in with her body and were underneath her, getting soaked
in her decomposing body fluids, including maybe plastic from any
construction site along the coast, as well as some duct tape that *wasn't*
used on her, but floated in from a completely different place. All that
twirling around in currents could have wrapped her in a nightgown that blew
off a yacht, but just because it tests for another person's DNA doesn't mean
Scott didn't do it and someone else did.
Hello, jurors, don't be distracted by the clown on the right, look back at
the center ring of the Big Top, where the spotlight's on the husband who
didn't want a wife or child...
Sarah Monroe
>proving guilt, not the other way around. Also, there's a little thing
>called the 5th amendment).
>
Remember that one has to claim the Fifth Amendement in court, remember Fuhrman
on the stand? Claiming that tends to make one look guilty, why else would you
refuse to testify.
Gms
CHRISTIAN, n.
One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably
suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor..... The Devil's Dictionary
Volfie
"circe" <ci...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:prv9h0p7qbdtditu3...@4ax.com...
And he thinks Snot is gonna fess up NOW? uh huh.
Giselle (you do know if he told Geragos he killed his wife that Geragos
could not defend him as "innocent", right?)
Alan Street
<gmsp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >No, he doesn't, and yes, it does (remember, the state has the burden of
> >proving guilt, not the other way around. Also, there's a little thing
> >called the 5th amendment).
> >
>
> Remember that one has to claim the Fifth Amendement in court, remember Fuhrman
> on the stand? Claiming that tends to make one look guilty, why else would you
> refuse to testify.
>
>
Invoking your Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate yourself while
on the witness stand is once example. But not turning over evidence
that would incriminate yourself is another, and doesn't need to be done
publicly.
circe
Well, sure.
But the only thing that prevents that defense is an explict statement
from the client like "I did it". Questions like "Have you seen that
plastic before?" are perfectly legitimate.
circe
Volfie
"circe" <ci...@ameritech.net> wrote
> >Giselle (you do know if he told Geragos he killed his wife that Geragos
> >could not defend him as "innocent", right?)
> >
>
>
> Well, sure.
>
> But the only thing that prevents that defense is an explict statement
> from the client like "I did it". Questions like "Have you seen that
> plastic before?" are perfectly legitimate.
You're right; I never even thought about that. And that's probably exactly
how Geragos would get around it.
Giselle (hey... you think like Geragos... ::arching an eyebrow at Circe)
Sarah Monroe
>Invoking your Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate yourself while
>on the witness stand is once example. But not turning over evidence
>that would incriminate yourself is another, and doesn't need to be done
>publicly.
>
>
>
>
>
>
If you *don't turn evidence over* then it isn't done publicly or privately.
Your arguement does not make sense.
circe
>>
>>Invoking your Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate yourself while
>>on the witness stand is once example. But not turning over evidence
>>that would incriminate yourself is another, and doesn't need to be done
>>publicly.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>If you *don't turn evidence over* then it isn't done publicly or privately.
>Your arguement does not make sense.
>
>
Maybe you could stand outside of the DAs office with nothing in your
hands, silently taunting them.... :)
circe
Alan Street
<gmsp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >Invoking your Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate yourself while
> >on the witness stand is once example. But not turning over evidence
> >that would incriminate yourself is another, and doesn't need to be done
> >publicly.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> If you *don't turn evidence over* then it isn't done publicly or privately.
> Your arguement does not make sense.
>
>
My argument is that Scott Peterson (or his attorney) is under no
obligation to turn over any evidence that might incriminate him.
Sarah Monroe
>obligation to turn over any evidence that might incriminate him.
>
>
>
>
>
>
His lawyer is an officer of the court and he is obligated to do that, if he
thinks, for any reason, that his client is guilty.
formica63
circe:
> Maybe you could stand outside of the DAs office with nothing in your
> hands, silently taunting them.... :)
Scott + Geragos = Rocky + Bullwinkle
--
Formica
email me at formica63atgmaildotcom
circe
<formica...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>circe:
>
>> Maybe you could stand outside of the DAs office with nothing in your
>> hands, silently taunting them.... :)
>
>Scott + Geragos = Rocky + Bullwinkle
Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!
circe
OzzieAnnie
> >obligation to turn over any evidence that might incriminate him.
> >
> >
> His lawyer is an officer of the court and he is obligated to do
that, if he
> thinks, for any reason, that his client is guilty.
>
> Gms
> CHRISTIAN, n.
Not just as an officer of the court. Any citizen is required to turn
in evidence of a crime if they possess it.
But if G. decides such and such *isn't* such evidence...
OA
Bradley K. Sherman
Maggie <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote:
>From the SF Chronicle:
> Modesto detectives originally seemed excited by the discovery of the plastic
>sheet, believing that the "Target Products" insignia traced back to a Modesto
>company, according to one person familiar with the case. It turns out, however,
>that the plastic is actually used by a Canadian firm to ship building
>materials. Apparently, similar bags were found at the Richmond-San Rafael
>Bridge, which is undergoing major reconstruction.
That hurts the (predicted) prosecution contention that the
tides bring stuff from where Scott said he was to where the
bodies were found. Or rather it shows that stuff from all over
the bay can wash up on that same shore.
--bks
Alan Street
wrote:
> > >My argument is that Scott Peterson (or his attorney) is under no
> > >obligation to turn over any evidence that might incriminate him.
> > >
> > >
> > His lawyer is an officer of the court and he is obligated to do
> that, if he
> > thinks, for any reason, that his client is guilty.
> >
> > Gms
> > CHRISTIAN, n.
>
> Not just as an officer of the court. Any citizen is required to turn
> in evidence of a crime if they possess it.
>
Er, no. The justice department would like you to think otherwise, but
you have no obligation to be a goverment snitch.
sandy spade
"Bradley K. Sherman" <b...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cf499t$ahc$1...@panix2.panix.com...
worked a job (construction type) where you threw everything leftover on the
job in a hole and buried it. Works the same with water. G is blowing in the
wind again.
s
Sarah Monroe
>> in evidence of a crime if they possess it.
>>
Alan Street replies....
>Er, no. The justice department would like you to think otherwise, but
>you have no obligation to be a goverment snitch.
>
Alan's right. Government must pay me big money to be their snitch. I'm
talking millions.
Sarah Monroe
>worked a job (construction type) where you threw everything leftover on the
>job in a hole and buried it. Works the same with water. G is blowing in the
>wind again.
>s
>
>
>
Geragos comes up with some new BS every Thursday so there can be a long
weekend. I'm sure the jury appreciates the long weekend but , one day, it may
dawn on them that without his BS, the case would be over, they can give their
verdict and be done with it.
Volfie
"Sarah Monroe" <gmsp...@aol.com> wrote
> Geragos comes up with some new BS every Thursday so there can be a long
> weekend. I'm sure the jury appreciates the long weekend but , one day, it
may
> dawn on them that without his BS, the case would be over, they can give
their
> verdict and be done with it.
They said the jury looked a little pissed this time. GOOD. Perhaps they
have finally heard all that hissing from the defense table.
Giselle (let's see, he's done: death/funeral, exculpatory evidence -- what
do you figure is next? I bet when he calls Darth Jackie to testify she goes
into the hospital over the holidays. Anyone wanna bet?)
Cliff and Linda Griffith
news:10hf8pl...@corp.supernews.com...
> They said the jury looked a little pissed this time. GOOD. Perhaps they
> have finally heard all that hissing from the defense table.
>
> Giselle (let's see, he's done: death/funeral, exculpatory evidence -- what
> do you figure is next? I bet when he calls Darth Jackie to testify she
goes
> into the hospital over the holidays. Anyone wanna bet?)
>
because Geragos had to attend a hearing "on an unrelated matter." I don't
remember if it was when he was still with Michael Jackson, or when he
petitioned for money for expert witnesses. Regardless, I'm pretty sure they
missed a Tuesday for the request for additional money for witnesses.
I wouldn't be surprised if Jackie were hospitalized sometime before this
trial is over. Which holiday are you considering: Christmas, Easter, or
the Fourth of July?
Linda
Phoenix
says...
> "Volfie" <vol...@ccrtc.com> wrote in message
> news:10hf8pl...@corp.supernews.com...
> > They said the jury looked a little pissed this time. GOOD. Perhaps they
> > have finally heard all that hissing from the defense table.
> >
> > Giselle (let's see, he's done: death/funeral, exculpatory evidence -- what
> > do you figure is next? I bet when he calls Darth Jackie to testify she
> goes
> > into the hospital over the holidays. Anyone wanna bet?)
> >
> Don't forget: there was one regular day of testimony that was postponed
> because Geragos had to attend a hearing "on an unrelated matter." I don't
> remember if it was when he was still with Michael Jackson, or when he
> petitioned for money for expert witnesses. Regardless, I'm pretty sure they
> missed a Tuesday for the request for additional money for witnesses.
Nope. It was for the funeral of Eric Douglas.
Not a big deal considering all the worthless witnesses the prosecution
is presenting and questioning for days at a time. 2 reasons this trial
is taking so long - CA judges don't like working on Fridays and the DA
is producing the weirdest case this side of the Stokes Monkey Trial.
bel
Volfie
"Cliff and Linda Griffith" <grif...@charter.net> wrote
[..]
> I wouldn't be surprised if Jackie were hospitalized sometime before this
> trial is over. Which holiday are you considering: Christmas, Easter, or
> the Fourth of July?
>
> Linda
Chanukah straight through Valentine's Day.
Giselle (or maybe President's Day...)
yaffaDina
>
> In article <10hf9tv...@corp.supernews.com>, grif...@charter.net
> says...
> > "Volfie" <vol...@ccrtc.com> wrote in message
> > news:10hf8pl...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > They said the jury looked a little pissed this time. GOOD. Perhaps they
> > > have finally heard all that hissing from the defense table.
> > >
> > > Giselle (let's see, he's done: death/funeral, exculpatory evidence -- what
> > > do you figure is next? I bet when he calls Darth Jackie to testify she
> > goes
> > > into the hospital over the holidays. Anyone wanna bet?)
> > >
> > Don't forget: there was one regular day of testimony that was postponed
> > because Geragos had to attend a hearing "on an unrelated matter." I don't
> > remember if it was when he was still with Michael Jackson, or when he
> > petitioned for money for expert witnesses. Regardless, I'm pretty sure they
> > missed a Tuesday for the request for additional money for witnesses.
>
> Nope. It was for the funeral of Eric Douglas.
>
> Not a big deal considering all the worthless witnesses the prosecution
> is presenting and questioning for days at a time. 2 reasons this trial
> is taking so long - CA judges don't like working on Fridays and the DA
> is producing the weirdest case this side of the Stokes Monkey Trial.
>
> bel
Excuse Me! CA judges don't like working on Fridays? Oh dear. If only
they had to work on Fridays the same as the rest of us! I thought there
was a particular reason, but it's just that judges like a long weekend
every weekend.
yD -- whole lotta head shaking goin' on
Phoenix
That's what folks have been reporting here in response to the vexing
habit of Delucchi's to take every Friday off. This appears to be quite
common in CA. It's Judges' golf day.
bel
formica63
> > Excuse Me! CA judges don't like working on Fridays? Oh dear. If only
> > they had to work on Fridays the same as the rest of us! I thought there
> > was a particular reason, but it's just that judges like a long weekend
> > every weekend.
> > yD -- whole lotta head shaking goin' on
bel:
> That's what folks have been reporting here in response to the vexing
> habit of Delucchi's to take every Friday off. This appears to be quite
> common in CA. It's Judges' golf day.
I don't actually know if it's the case, but many such professions have all
kinds of "off screen" work which needs to be done regularly. Many academics
used to keep their Fridays clear of teaching for this purpose, at least here
in Australia. Students would often assume this meant that no work was done
on Friday: in fact a huge amount of work is was being done on Friday (never
mind Saturday and Sunday) to keep things rolling Mon.-Thurs, as well as into
the future.
I'd assume, on the same model, judges, attorneys, &c have a lot of stuff to
do beside sit in court. No?
Patty
> yD:
>
> > > Excuse Me! CA judges don't like working on Fridays? Oh dear. If only
> > > they had to work on Fridays the same as the rest of us! I thought there
> > > was a particular reason, but it's just that judges like a long weekend
> > > every weekend.
> > > yD -- whole lotta head shaking goin' on
>
> > That's what folks have been reporting here in response to the vexing
> > habit of Delucchi's to take every Friday off. This appears to be quite
> > common in CA. It's Judges' golf day.
>
> kinds of "off screen" work which needs to be done regularly. Many academics
> used to keep their Fridays clear of teaching for this purpose, at least here
> in Australia. Students would often assume this meant that no work was done
> on Friday: in fact a huge amount of work is was being done on Friday (never
> mind Saturday and Sunday) to keep things rolling Mon.-Thurs, as well as into
> the future.
>
> I'd assume, on the same model, judges, attorneys, &c have a lot of stuff to
> do beside sit in court. No?
>
> --
> Formica
>
Several years ago the San Jose Mercury did an investigation on Santa
Clara County judges' Friday's absentism and found few worked or were
even in the office that day. In fact, the one that did hold court
regularly on Fridays was a 70-something-year-old retired judge. Of
course, it may have changed in Santa Clara County (county next to San
Mateo) since the report, but I doubt it. I bet golfing Fridays is an
institution in their practice. And people wonder why it takes so long
for the death penalty to be imposed in California.
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n872.a03.html
http://www.kricar.com/drop/mdnov98.htm#judges
From the San Jose Mercury News 10/4/98:
On a typical Friday, Santa Clara County's Hall of Justice looks like
it is going out of business. Some judges are toiling away in their
chambers, but, with the exception of a few clerks and bailiffs,
courtroom after courtroom has been abandoned.
Despite a crushing criminal caseload, a five-month Mercury News
investigation documented that by lunch time on most Fridays, a cadre
of veteran judges, the men who hear the most notorious and heinous
cases, have left for home, are off running errands or are on their way
to play golf.
``You could set a bomb off in the Hall of Justice on most Fridays and
not kill any judges or many lawyers,'' says a veteran prosecutor who
has worked in the building for years.
These judges say they are free to leave because there is not enough
work to keep them in the courthouse on Fridays, and claim they are
taking vacation time to which they are entitled.
``If I have nothing assigned to me . . . and I have no cases under
submission, there is no requirement to the electorate to be here to
look at that wall,'' says Superior Court Judge Thomas Hastings, a
19-year veteran who regularly plays golf on Fridays. ``In fact, I
think the electorate would be better served knowing that for my
emotional stability and physical stability, I'm getting exercise.''
But a hard look at the county's criminal courts suggests that judges
should not have to search far for work. The courts are burdened with
one of the biggest backlogs of felony cases awaiting trial in the
county's history.
OzzieAnnie
"formica63" <formica...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:NNURc.43434$K53....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Same thing I was thinking. Judges need time to hear/rule on motions
related to other cases over which they've presided and so forth.
Don't they?
OA
Phoenix
eartha...@yahoo.com says...
>
> Several years ago the San Jose Mercury did an investigation on Santa
> Clara County judges' Friday's absentism and found few worked or were
> even in the office that day. In fact, the one that did hold court
> regularly on Fridays was a 70-something-year-old retired judge. Of
> course, it may have changed in Santa Clara County (county next to San
> Mateo) since the report, but I doubt it. I bet golfing Fridays is an
> institution in their practice. And people wonder why it takes so long
> for the death penalty to be imposed in California.
>
> http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n872.a03.html
>
> http://www.kricar.com/drop/mdnov98.htm#judges
Thank-you Patty!
I knew I read about this.
bel
formica63
> > yD:
> >
> > > > Excuse Me! CA judges don't like working on Fridays? Oh dear. If
only
> > > > they had to work on Fridays the same as the rest of us! I thought
there
> > > > was a particular reason, but it's just that judges like a long
weekend
> > > > every weekend.
> > > > yD -- whole lotta head shaking goin' on
> >
> > bel:
> > > That's what folks have been reporting here in response to the vexing
> > > habit of Delucchi's to take every Friday off. This appears to be
quite
> > > common in CA. It's Judges' golf day.
Form:
> > I don't actually know if it's the case, but many such professions have
all
> > kinds of "off screen" work which needs to be done regularly. Many
academics
> > used to keep their Fridays clear of teaching for this purpose, at least
here
> > in Australia. Students would often assume this meant that no work was
done
> > on Friday: in fact a huge amount of work is was being done on Friday
(never
> > mind Saturday and Sunday) to keep things rolling Mon.-Thurs, as well as
into
> > the future.
> >
> > I'd assume, on the same model, judges, attorneys, &c have a lot of stuff
to
> > do beside sit in court. No?
Patty:
> Several years ago the San Jose Mercury did an investigation on Santa
> Clara County judges' Friday's absentism and found few worked or were
> even in the office that day. In fact, the one that did hold court
> regularly on Fridays was a 70-something-year-old retired judge. Of
> course, it may have changed in Santa Clara County (county next to San
> Mateo) since the report, but I doubt it. I bet golfing Fridays is an
> institution in their practice. And people wonder why it takes so long
> for the death penalty to be imposed in California.
>
> http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n872.a03.html
Interesting figures, but not supporting the contention that "few worked or
were even in the office that day." One example: courts were *on average*
50% vacant after 2.30pm on Friday, and the article adds "[o]n many of these
days, nearly all the courtrooms were shut." Logic dictates that the
corollary is that on other days they must almost all have been working to
achieve this average result. I could point out other examples of selective
highlighting, but this one is indicative enough.
You didn't quote this:
"Other Hall of Justice judges who play golf regularly say they are taking
legitimate vacation time when they head out early on Fridays. Navarro
declined to comment, saying Hastings spoke for him. Foley, who handles
mostly non-trial drug cases, says he takes off a half day on Fridays to
golf. He says he compensates for that by reviewing legal documents on many
Saturdays and Sundays.
``There have been years in the past where I have not taken any vacation,''
Foley says. ``You can't believe how relaxing golf is. I get to see some
green grass, breathe some fresh air, watch the little animals run around,
and just forget about this legal stuff, because it's all going to be there
on Saturday morning.''
Members of the legal community credit Foley with an extraordinary work ethic
and characterize Hastings as one of the county's best criminal-trial judges.
"
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n872.a03.html
Do you really believe that a judge who leaves early on Friday but is
credited by his peers with an "extraordinary work ethic" isn't working an
appropriate number of hours? I don't. Do we assume that the judges are
lying, for example, when they say they are using their vacation time? If
not, surely that's their entitlement.
I'm always suspicious of these kinds of reports, because they are selective
in their facts -- anonymous snarky comments are not facts, a survey of when
the courtrooms are closed but not of the hours the judges are working is
skewed research -- and they play instead to suspicion and resentment of
people in power -- "we work Fridays, why don't they?" It may be that you
have an unusally torpid set of judges in the system, but I think this
"survey" strains credulity.
Patty
:
:
: > > yD:
I read the article years ago and didn't reread it. I knew someone who worked
in the courts who told me years before the article about the courts being
practically empty on Friday and judges taking lots of vacations. They were
actually more complaining about the fact that when the judges take all this time
off, the county is still paying for the court reporter, court clerk, and bailiff's time,
even though there may not be anything for them to do. Judges are paid by the state,
court employees by the county.
Osama Bin Bush
ecords.htm
San Pablo Bay (which is the bay area"
Sturgeon
468-0
San Pablo Bay
7/9/83
Joey Pallotta
Crockett
--
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we,"
George W bush, IQ in the 2 digits.
Michael Snyder
"Osama Bin Bush" <Bushi...@bush.com> wrote in message
news:Bushin2004-32279...@newssvr23-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fishing/html/AnglerRecognition/StateRecord/AnglingR
> ecords.htm
>
>
> San Pablo Bay (which is the bay area"
> Sturgeon
>
> 468-0
Do you understand the difference between "Record" and "Average"?
The "Average" size is the size that a fisherman, especially a novice
sturgeon fisherman such as Scott, might reasonably expect to catch.
The "Average" size is less than a tenth the size of the record-setting
fish that Joey Pallotta of Crockett caught MORE THAN 20 YEARS AGO.