Geragos Finds Closure in Closing
Did Scott Peterson
Commit Murder To Avoid California Family Law?
Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 11-04-04
With “No Fault Divorce” running rampant in this country, it is hard to understand why an extramarital affair is still considered motivation to kill a spouse. Bill Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Jesse Jackson, and Gary Condit didn’t polish off their spouse in exercising their legal right to “get some strange”. Although Dan Rather was never forced to reveal his source of information that exonerated Gary Condit (regarding the death of Chandra Levy), many believed there was a connection until the terrorist attacks of 911 captured the news.
The jury in Redwood City, CA is currently deliberating the fate of Scott Peterson as a consequence of the fate of both Laci and Conner. The riveting testimony, forensic evidence, and legal arguments that were trotted out before the Peterson jury is reminiscent of the O.J. Simpson case. Although the Peterson case did not preempt the soap operas on television (as did the Simpson case), a feminist backlash is still expected if the jury does not convict.
The Simpson case prompted feminist organizations to advertise hotlines for women to call during the ongoing trial, which would allow them to realize they were (or about to be) victims of domestic violence and what they should do about it. Women callers were instructed on the finer points of Family Law in their State (that may not have been covered in their soap operas) and given numbers for shelters and easy ways to eject these potentially deadly spouses from their homes and away from their children.
The domestic violence strategy did not work for Claira Harris, who fully expected her husband to assault her when she confronted her husband leaving a hotel with his mistress. The camera crew she hired to capture her husband’s transgressions ended up capturing her’s. Claira Harris ran her husband over three times with the man’s daughter in the same car, pleading for her to stop.
Texas prosecutor (Magness) explained to the jury the options available to Claira Harris, "If a man is cheating on you do what every other woman in this country does—take his house, take his car, take his kids, take his respect in the community, make him wish he were dead—but you don't get to kill him". Perhaps if Claira Harris uttered that terrorist threat to her husband at the hotel, she may have received her assault and there would have been no loss of life.
Soon after Scott Peterson was charged with murder, the California Attorney General (Lockyer) pronounced the case “a slam dunk". After a lengthy presentation of the evidence against Scott Peterson, many legal experts still wonder what Lockyer knew that prompted his response and why it wasn’t presented at the trial. Was Lockyer playing the numbers regarding his State’s homicide statistics or was he simply admitting the fact that a California spouse facing Family Law would rather commit murder to avoid it?
Attorney General’s in each state have Child Support Enforcement (CSE) agencies under their control as well as District Attorneys. Although divorces usually start in Family Court and involve independent attorneys, CSE takes over when parents are driven into poverty and are free to dabble in Civil proceedings, deprive rights and privileges, and then become the complainant for the District Attorney in seeking to incarcerate the former breadwinner.
California prosecutor (Distaso) said “Peterson had long maintained two lives — ‘the perfect husband’ in public, and in private, a cad grudgingly tolerating his marriage — but the birth of his first child and the expense of raising the boy or paying child support jeopardized the secret side he treasured”. The District Attorney seems to finally explore the true motivation for this senseless loss of life, which transforms Laci into collateral damage. Scott wanted to kill the baby – Laci just got in the way.
Defense attorney (Geragos), “who took Peterson's case saying he hoped both to exonerate his client and find the true killers, conceded that after five months of hinting at involvement by Satanists, burglars, Frey, transients and even Laci Peterson's relatives as possible culprits, the defense was unable to identify a perpetrator”, “at one point he ridiculed the prosecution motive, saying incredulously, ‘He is going to kill his wife and child because he doesn't want to pay child support?’ the first alternate juror, a young mother of four boys, nodded her head as he made the comment”
Geragos attempted to deny this crucial evidence that was offered up by the prosecution in closing arguments, when he should have asked for a mistrial. Geragos should have asked the judge to redirect the prosecution to prosecute themselves, in motivating the murder of this innocent mother and child. What exactly are the consequences that Family Law and CSE hang over a parent’s head if they allow their child to be born? Geragos may have found the perpetrator of this crime sitting in the courtroom attempting to prosecute his client - the same perpetrator responsible for the death of Chandra Levy and Bonney-Lee Bakely.
“They got this guy in Germany named Fritz (or maybe its Verner). Anyway he's got this theory; if you want to test something scientifically - how the planets go around the sun, what sunspots are made of, why the water comes out of the tap - you have to look at it, but your looking changes it. You can't know the reality of what happened (or what would have happened) if you hadn’t stuck in your own Goddamn shnoz. So there is no 'what happened'. Looking at something changes it. They call it the Uncertainty Principle. I'm sure it sounds screwy, but even Einstein says the guy is on to something. Science - perception - reality - doubt - reasonable doubt. I'm saying the more you look, the less you really know. It's a fact, a proven fact, in a way it is the only fact there is. This Heinie even wrote it out in numbers. I don't know who committed this murder - the beauty of it is - that we don't gotta know. We just gotta show that (God damn it) they don't know. Because of Fritz or Vernor or whatever the Hell his name is. Reidenshnieder sees daylight. We got a real shot at this folks - let's not get cocky.” (The movie “THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE”)
Jim Untershine, 824 E Pass Rd #3, Gulfport, MS 39507, email@example.com, www.gndzerosrv.com
Jim Untershine holds a BSEE from Mississippi State University and has 13 years experience in feedback control system design. Mr. Untershine is currently using the teachings of Werner Heisenberg and Henry David Thoreau to expose Family Law in California as the exploitation of children for money and the indentured servitude of heterosexual taxpayers who dare to raise children in this country.