Want Greta's blog delivered directly to your e-mail box? Click here to sign up!
Since I have been on the road, I have fallen behind in my e-mail responses. I have decided to post some today and answer them. Incidentally, we are back "on the road" Wednesday! I get home at midnight tonight and have to be up at 4 a.m. to catch a 6 a.m. flight for a 24-hour trip to Arkansas (search). So, let me answer your question now, "No, I did not drink before Wednesday night's show from Arkansas. My word slurring was due to sleep deprivation. I need more than three hours sleep each night..."
Here are some e-mails (randomly selected) and my answers:
E-mail No. 1
This could be a point of discussion you could bring up on your show one night.
My wife and I last night were discussing the Scott Peterson (search) murder trial. My wife feels it is OK to have a lawyer on a murder case like this. I disagree. The reason being, if the lawyer is a former or current defense lawyer then I feel he will lean towards the defense. If the lawyer is a state lawyer then he is most likely to lean towards the state.
I feel this is an interesting topic. Can lawyers be objected, or do they just cause a long trail and maybe a mistrial? This is just my opinion, but I feel lawyers tend to speak to people like they have all the facts and anyone that disagrees with them is wrong. They tend to make the case more confusing then it is. They dig to deep into every piece of evidence, maybe to deep, where a non-lawyer will look at the evidence and make a decision base on that.
I just don't like the idea of a lawyer on a jury.
I hope this doesn't offend you in any way, this is just how I feel.
ANSWER: Donald: believe it or not, lawyers (this includes criminal defense lawyers) are NOT in favor of crime. The U.S. Constitution REQUIRES that accused persons have a lawyer and that the lawyer work very hard for that client. I spent years as a criminal defense lawyer, but believe I would be a fair and good juror.
E-mail No. 2
Greta... I agree with you 100% about the mob outside the courthouse after the verdict on Scott was read. I, too, yelled 'thank you GOD!' when I heard the news, but I was in my living room. I thought it was cruel beyond words to jeer Scott's mom. She must be suffering beyond our wildest imaginations, just like Laci's mom is and both their whole families as well. People can be really stupid and 'thoughtless' doesn't begin to say it. My prayers are with both families in their losses.
ANSWER: Lindy: thanks for the note. I am glad you see that my remark was not directed at people for having an opinion but rather for having it in a place that may have an impact on the jury (who must decide this case themselves without outside influence.)
E-mail No. 3
I have seen Amber's dad on a few shows and the news. All this guy is doing is trying to up the money deal on Amber's book deal by trying to make people believe her part in the case is what got Scott convicted. This is extremely laughable, because all she proved was that she is not a good mother, (leaving her child alone with a stranger), a very loose woman and a liar, (sleeping with Scott on their 1st date and dating other men while she was telling Scott they were exclusive), knowingly being involved with other married men in her past and even getting vicious with one of their wives. Maybe she should write a book about her life on them subjects, but she wouldn't be able to name it "Looking for Mr. Goodbar", that has already been taken. Maybe she can name it "Amber does California"? At any rate, they should check Amber's dads alibi for December 23 and 24th.
E-mail No. 4
I watch your show about the Laci Peterson case almost everyday.
Your panel members keep saying well this is a "first offense." Sooooooooooo?
Excuse me... he has to murder twice in order for it to be taken seriously? I don't get it! Who the heck made up laws like this? This is murder... out and out murder he was convicted of. The victims don't get a second chance... EVER!
I can yell at the TV all night long... but I have to ask... why would his first offense even matter!
Could you please explain this on your next show!
La Grande, OR
ANSWER: Verna: I am not sure exactly what your question is but let me try and explain. This is Peterson's first conviction. In a death penalty phase of a trial the fact that he has no priors — even though he now has two murder convictions — is by law something the jury CAN consider if they want in weighing what are called "mitigating factors." If he had a criminal record, they COULD weigh it as an "aggravating" factor. The jury will be instructed to decide what is more powerful — the weight of all the mitigating factors or the weight of all the aggravating factors.
NOTE: I deliberately picked the next two e-mails to give you two opposing e-mails on the topic (these were not randomly selected):
E-mail No. 5
RE: Your MOB Blog about the jeering of Jackie Peterson
Although I too believe that the crowd should not have jeered Jackie P... you made a statement: "Jackie didn't commit a crime. Jackie was not even accused of a crime."
I have the same PERSONAL OPINION as many others, pundits included... that Jackie LIED on the stand to protect her son (which of course is a crime, to commit perjury). I do not believe a word of her lame excuses why he had so much CASH on him when he was arrested, she got mixed up with her bank, and replaced the money with cash so he wouldn't have to wait for a check to clear... the car being bought under HER name, and the many forms of proof that he had on him at the time, some of them family members licenses. Their lame cover-up stories were an insult to most people's intelligence, and the jury saw right through it, as did I.
I think that SCOTT IS THE WAY HE IS TODAY BECAUSE OF HIS PARENTS... BECAUSE of their making EXCUSES for him, covering up, and not letting him take RESPONSIBILITY for his own actions. He has led a life of privilege and apparently getting his own way, and he is SPOILED as a result. They ENABLE HIM and were trying to HELP him FLEE THE COUNTRY instead of face the music when his wife and son's body were washed ashore. (WHERE HE HAD PLACED HIMSELF, FISHING, NO LESS!) How his parents can be so STUPID to believe his many lies is beyond me, but it is obvious that HE MANIPULATES EVERYONE AROUND HIM with his lies, ESPECIALLY people who have grown to love him. It is sad that they cannot see the forest from the trees, and that his siblings and their families have MORTGAGED THEIR OWN HOMES to pay for his DEFENSE... and that slimeball let them go into debt because he cannot tell the truth FOR ONCE IN HIS LIFE. If he somehow wins a retrial or appeal, they will once again exhaust their homes and savings, to save his sorry butt. They are NOT a lovely family. They are an "enabling, dysfunctional" one, and have obvious psychological problems of their own...
Forest City, PA
E-mail No. 6
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of the crowd behavior when the verdict was announced. I felt as though I was watching the Emperor's thumbs down signal at the Roman Coliseum. As a Californian, I was embarrassed.
Vern F. Van Buskirk
Do you have something you'd like to say to Greta? Write to her at firstname.lastname@example.org!
Watch "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren" weeknights at 10 p.m. ET