The Brief

[jane]

maybe Delucchi was getting senile. or maybe he already knew this would be his last case and he wanted it to be the case of the century. But to intentionally set the case up for a reversal on appeal is totally cold and heartless -- to play with a man's life like that and to play with the emotions of the others involved. That would be unforgivable for him to do that.

At some point, I did consider whether or not Delucchi would have made all these errors deliberately just so the conviction would be reversed on appeal. But, as you say, Marlene, not only would that be cold and heartless, it would be sadistic to put a man on death row for approx 15 years on the chance his conviction might be reversed.

So many of Delucchi's decisions in this case are so bad, it's hard to believe that he made them unintentionally. From the beginning, I think he decided to get the train into the station, no matter how damaged it was. He had numerous reasons to declare a mistrial and he denied all of them.

Did he do that because he had been threatened in some way? His deference to John Guinasso is inexplicable. Had he been paid off by someone? He was retired and may have known that he didn't have long to live.

It's very hard to understand why he conducted the trial the way he did.

[LACurry]

I do think Scott seems pretty distracted that day -- he piddles away at the warehouse, barely leaving himself enough time to actually get the boat in the water, and as it is, he takes too long and misses picking up the basket for Amy. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that he told Laci about Amber before the last date he had with her, and Laci didn't know about that date, and it's troubling him. And with Amber being so 'needy' -- I think he really wondered how he would get himself out of that mess. Just conjecture, of course.

I really do think it is possible that he told Laci about Amber. I also do not believe it was something that would have broken their marriage, although it probably did hurt her terribly.

I do not know what the statistics are but, as awful as it sounds, I do know of MANY women that were pregnant and their husbands cheated on them during the pregnancy, myself included in my first marriage.

You also make a good point of Scott not seeming to be in any hurry that morning. What also struck me as odd is in the appeal it is stated that the prosecution believes that the body was placed in the toolbox portion of the truck. Please excuse my next comment, I am not here to offend anyone, but it is something I believe must be considered....

If we consider that rigor mortis sets in beginning in 2-3 hours after a death, it makes me more doubtful of the evidence the prosecution presented with the pregnant woman climbing into the back of the truck...more importantly, into that toolbox. It would seem to me that Scott piddling at the warehouse for at least an hour that morning would only have been making this particular situation worse. It is one thing for a pregnant woman to freely climb into the back of a truck toolbox, but it is quite another to manipulate a 153 lb. dead body into a truck toolbox.

When I expressed to my husband that not one bit of evidence of a dead body was found in the back of the truck or in the toolbox, he stated that he does not believe the body was in either the truck bed or the toolbox (mind you, he is not convinced of Scott's innocence in this case...but he is not convinced of his guilt either...he is only relatively sure Scott did not receive a fair trial). Not only that, but if we look at the pictures of back of the truck and at the pictures of the toolbox, it certainly does not look to me as if Scott had taken the truck to the car wash or anything in an attempt to clean those areas or remove any sign of evidence. I also do not believe that a tarp, as difficult as they are to stay wrapped around anything, let alone a body that is most likely changing relatively quickly because of rigor mortis, would have prevented any evidence of death from escaping and leaving a trail of some sort.

[LACurry]

maybe Delucchi was getting senile. or maybe he already knew this would be his last case and he wanted it to be the case of the century. But to intentionally set the case up for a reversal on appeal is totally cold and heartless -- to play with a man's life like that and to play with the emotions of the others involved. That would be unforgivable for him to do that.

Yes, it would be unforgivable indeed.

I do understand and acknowledge that it sounds too crazy to believe anything Delucchi did was intentional....but, I cannot escape the fact that he knew exactly what the law was in this particular area. When I get the time, I will point out specific comments and statements he had made in his other trials that proves this point to be true.

My husband believes that because we are not seeing the entire record of what happened in the jury selection process (which I acknowledge is probably a fact), we cannot assume that everything Gardner addresses in the appeal is the entire factual representation and there are issues we are not aware of. I do agree with that to a point. In my opinion, the objections addressed in the appeal make it pretty clear what was going on during the exchanges in court, as do Delucchi's reply on the record.

In keeping with my husband negatively replying to Gardner's inclusion of the juror dismissal issues FIRST in the brief, when other issues seem to be more harmful and more convincing with a better remedy of complete reversal, I hardly doubt that Gardner would have omitted evidence that would hurt the appellant or possibly cause the Court to disregard the rest of the brief because what issues were presented FIRST were not completely factual.

And, in the end, I do believe we have Geragos stating, over and over, that he was not in agreement with Delucchi's interpretation of the law, and informing him exactly what his interpretation the law was concerning the voire dire of a juror. Delucchi's replay was, at least once, "this is the law in CALIFORNIA."

[LACurry]

maybe Delucchi was getting senile. or maybe he already knew this would be his last case and he wanted it to be the case of the century. But to intentionally set the case up for a reversal on appeal is totally cold and heartless -- to play with a man's life like that and to play with the emotions of the others involved. That would be unforgivable for him to do that.

At some point, I did consider whether or not Delucchi would have made all these errors deliberately just so the conviction would be reversed on appeal. But, as you say, Marlene, not only would that be cold and heartless, it would be sadistic to put a man on death row for approx 15 years on the chance his conviction might be reversed.

So many of Delucchi's decisions in this case are so bad, it's hard to believe that he made them unintentionally. From the beginning, I think he decided to get the train into the station, no matter how damaged it was. He had numerous reasons to declare a mistrial and he denied all of them.

Did he do that because he had been threatened in some way? His deference to John Guinasso is inexplicable. Had he been paid off by someone? He was retired and may have known that he didn't have long to live.

It's very hard to understand why he conducted the trial the way he did.

Also, would he have intentionally set up this trial for reversal knowing full well that what he had in his hands was another Sheppard case, where he knew, without a doubt, that there is no way on earth the defendant would receive a fair trial, ANYWHERE in the state of California, because of the intense nationwide publicity that he and many many others acknowledged to be worse than anything they had ever seen in all their years of service in the court system?

I am just guessing here but Delucchi may have personally felt Scott was guilty, and/or he may have felt that the scant evidence in the case was lacking enough for a hung jury or a sentence of less than death, when he behaved as if he had no clue what the law was concerning potential juror elimination. Or, he may have sympathized greatly for Laci's family, who only wanted justice, no matter who the alleged justice was against (not knowingly or willingly, of course) but possibly more as a result of wanting a resolution so they could continue on. Maybe he felt that the only moment in time that Scott would ever receive a fair trial (if even then) was years later down the road. In this scenario, it would also make perfect sense as to why the prosecution didn't object to Delucchi's decisions and interpretation of law. Perhaps the prosecution had its own doubts as to whether or not they could receive a conviction in this case because they KNEW the evidence was scant, and so the let the incorrect interpretation ride so that they too could get what they felt they needed....a conviction of guilt and sentence of death.

[LACurry]

I wondered as well if Delucchi possibly felt he was not long on this earth. But, he was rather young when he passed. I believe he was 76. Does anyone know what the cause of death of Alfred Delucchi was?

[marlene]

Delucchi didn't hesitate to say what CA law was regarding jury voir dire -- yet he consistently misapplied it. As you point out, this was not a pattern in his judicial career -- it's a stark departure.

However, since he started the whole process on the wrong track -- he allowed the dog trailing evidence, which happened in the pre-trial hearings even before voir dire began -- I have to conclude that it's as Jane stated -- he was determined to bring the train into the station no matter what. Perhaps it was pressure from above? Remember, already one change of venue, and already one judge dismissed by the prosecution without explanation.

One thing I do know, this prosecution had absolutely no doubts that Scott was guilty and no qualms about doing whatever it took to prove that. They did not consider their case in any way deficient.

Back to Delucchi -- we see in our own exercise how impossible it is to determine motive, which is why the State does not have to prove motive. So when we see a case tried on motive rather than on evidence of the crime -- we know something is very wrong.

Adultery-motive
finances-motive
wanting freedom-motive

evidence of the crime - none
evidence connecting the bodies to Scott - dog evidence (unreliable), Cheng (unscientific)

time in water 3-6 months, allows for the body to go into the bay as late as Jan 14.

Unpredictable body movement in the Bay means the bodies could have come from just about anywhere.

Motive-Means-Opportunity for the Medina burglars
Motive - she interrupted their burglary
Means - they had at least 2 vehicles, the van and Pearce's car, and at least 5 men (the 3 men Jackson saw, Todd, and Pearce)
Opportunity to put her in the Bay, they had 3 weeks to get her into the Bay, where everyone knew Scott had been.

[Lsmith510]

Yes Marlene, the topic of the tackle box and other lures was mentioned in the appeal. If he was fishing, that is a totally legit statement the appeal has made concerning the fact that he had an entire collection of lures in the tackle box in the boat and did not need the bag of lures left in the truck.

If, however, he falsely made a claim that he was fishing, to provide an excuse of sorts, when he was actually there to dump a body, without the license on his person (not sure exactly what the law is there in California though), it seems to me that that would have been taking a HUGE risk. It would seem to me that he would have been more careful to make sure the license was on his person in that case. Here, the DNR goes up to everyone and anyone fishing on such bodies of water to check and verify that everyone fishing is licensed. It is annoying but I do understand why they do it. If you do not have a license on your person, you receive an automatic fine. There is no option to say it is in your truck or anything. Granted, the fine is not that large but, if one were actually in the water to dump a body, it would seem odd to open yourself up to any such scrutiny under any circumstances in broad daylight...fishing or not.

The nefarious purchase of the fishing license is a perfect example of how the "puzzle pieces" the jury in this case put together to come to a guilty of pre-meditated murder verdict - simply don't fit together. As Marlene pointed out, Scott would not have needed a fishing license to take the boat out. So why purchase one? It completely contradicts the guilties' assertion that Scott planned to murder his wife and that his original alibi was going to be golfing (thus telling Amy he was going golfing) but was seen at the marina so he HAD to tell everyone he had gone "fishing". If someone doesn't plan on fishing - or plan on telling anyone that they had gone fishing - they don't buy a fishing license... and with a credit card no less!

[marlene]

And buying a boat was so unnecessary -- he could have driven to one of the nearby lakes with a bridge and a water depth of 300-400 feet.

[jane]

I wondered as well if Delucchi possibly felt he was not long on this earth. But, he was rather young when he passed. I believe he was 76. Does anyone know what the cause of death of Alfred Delucchi was?

Article about Delucchi:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/A ... 292889.php

[LACurry]

Yes Marlene, the topic of the tackle box and other lures was mentioned in the appeal. If he was fishing, that is a totally legit statement the appeal has made concerning the fact that he had an entire collection of lures in the tackle box in the boat and did not need the bag of lures left in the truck.

If, however, he falsely made a claim that he was fishing, to provide an excuse of sorts, when he was actually there to dump a body, without the license on his person (not sure exactly what the law is there in California though), it seems to me that that would have been taking a HUGE risk. It would seem to me that he would have been more careful to make sure the license was on his person in that case. Here, the DNR goes up to everyone and anyone fishing on such bodies of water to check and verify that everyone fishing is licensed. It is annoying but I do understand why they do it. If you do not have a license on your person, you receive an automatic fine. There is no option to say it is in your truck or anything. Granted, the fine is not that large but, if one were actually in the water to dump a body, it would seem odd to open yourself up to any such scrutiny under any circumstances in broad daylight...fishing or not.

The nefarious purchase of the fishing license is a perfect example of how the "puzzle pieces" the jury in this case put together to come to a guilty of pre-meditated murder verdict - simply don't fit together. As Marlene pointed out, Scott would not have needed a fishing license to take the boat out. So why purchase one? It completely contradicts the guilties' assertion that Scott planned to murder his wife and that his original alibi was going to be golfing (thus telling Amy he was going golfing) but was seen at the marina so he HAD to tell everyone he had gone "fishing". If someone doesn't plan on fishing - or plan on telling anyone that they had gone fishing - they don't buy a fishing license... and with a credit card no less!

Good point....but, those tidal charts from the computer might have come back to haunt him if he didn't say he was fishing.

*edited to state the research of the tidal charts of the bay might have come back to haunt him worse....if that is possible.