PDA

View Full Version : Scott Peterson trial



Pages : [1] 2

VenusGoddess
11-05-2004, 02:56 AM
What do you think the verdict will be and why?

(Sorry...just so sick of all the politics...heh heh)

TigersMilk
11-05-2004, 03:15 AM
Oh gosh ....I think he did it personally...I hate the guy damnit at least cry for your wife. There so much "evidence" that they have discussed in and out of the trial....and all of that media coverage.
But, saldy I think I should just get to my point and say thet he should die for what he did. Take a life then have yours be taken. The real truth is that I dont see him being convicted for the murders. I believe that our judicial system will let us down and only for the fact that there "is not enough evidence" and "questional evidence" thats a bunch of bullcrap. Id say more on this but my brain functions are limited at 2:15....

NinaDaisy
11-05-2004, 04:54 AM
He did it, but they're gonna let him off. He's a white OJ.

madmaxine
11-05-2004, 05:35 AM
Murder one or two; two maybe because so much time elapsed between Laci's disappearance and the discovery of her body, and the baby's.
For detailed information about the trial and case, go to

Rhiannon
11-05-2004, 05:49 AM
He's guilty. It's written all over his smug prick face. I guess it was too difficult to for him to realize that all he had to do was divorce his lovely wife. Instead, he had to send her (and their child, who never even got the chance to live) into a far-too-early grave.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that the case was handled correctly. I have this strange feeling in the pit of my stomach, that they'll let him off. I hope I'm wrong. He should be made to suffer a fate worse than death. He's the lowest form of scum there is.

madmaxine
11-05-2004, 06:08 AM
Rhi- worry not, fair lady. Some of Laci's relatives are NorCal bikers. If Scott walks, he won't walk long.....

VenusGoddess
11-05-2004, 10:01 AM
I've been following the trial since it started in the pre-lims last year. The only good thing about the whole thing is juror #5 (who is a doctor and a lawyer). However, all of the evidence is circumstantial. They couldn't use the body as it was so decomposed...never found a murder weapon...never found complete evidence of foul play...the cadaver dogs never identified the truck or the boat...

The good points are that there were only 3 people who used the launch that day...and Peterson was one of those people. Laci and Connor's body washed up within miles of the alleged dump site...and his taped phone calls are "questionable". He even had a taped phone call with his mother in which she tells him to "deny, deny, deny. Don't tell the police anything."

As great as it would be that he get convicted...I have a sick feeling that he's going to walk. If I was on that jury, I would simply say, "I cannot convict a man without evidence. I BELIEVE he is guilty...but there is not one thing that concretely links him to the crime!"

Unfortunately, like in the OJ case, I believe that there were a lot of mistakes made...the damning evidence...like something that was used to anchor Laci's body...would have sealed his fate...but they have nothing. I personally believe that they should have sent divers in after those...but, that's just MHO.

:pray: :meditate:

Rebuildme
11-05-2004, 10:24 AM
The prosecution actually has to prove that he did it.

madmaxine
11-05-2004, 10:43 AM
People have been convicted of crimes for less- I can see appeal complications due to the high profile of the case. BUT.......Scott's problem was having been a yammering, duplicitous psycho. He went on "Good Morning America" in front of the whole nation and lied. Then he tried to split to Mexico.
The most satisfying development? His noticable weight loss during the trial. Before capture and arrest, he was a pudgy f*ck with bleached blond hair. As his trial progressed and even his own lawyer appeared less and less interested in the welfare of his client, Scott lost pounds. You could say something's "eating him up from the inside.." Hmmm....If you were a juror watching him smirk and wiggle but get more gaunt, with everything you've been told......how would you vote?

VenusGoddess
11-05-2004, 10:56 AM
Being a dumb-ass and a murderer are two totally different things. I can sit here and say that I would convict him in a heartbeat. HOWEVER, due to the lack of hard evidence, how do you convict someone? You can DO it...but it won't hold...simply because there is no evidence. I think that the prosecution rushed this case a little too fast. I think forensics over-looked some key items...I think that evidence gatherers missed a piece or two (or three). Why? Maybe because once they started focusing on Scott, they figured they had an open and shut case.

With the scenario that the Prosecution gives, there is no EVIDENCE at the house that foul play happened there. No blood turned up...no murder weapon, no way to see how Laci was killed (to badly decomposed)...the only thing that the prosecution proved was that Laci and Conner were killed and washed up on a beach. But, other than that...they have nothing...no anchors...no eye-witnesses...nothing that "points" to the killer.

THAT is what the problem is...it's all circumstantial. Did he kill her and the baby? Most likely, however, did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed her? No, they didn't. With the circumstantial evidence that they have, it's gonna be a hard one. The wild card is juror #5...he's either for the guilt verdict or against is...and with the amount of "clout" that he has with the other jurors...they'll most likely follow him.

madmaxine
11-05-2004, 11:13 AM
You're right, Venus. But there are some incredibly conservative residents of Northern CA, and there might be a "make an example of him" sentiment going on. Also, the Modesto Police Department has been anxious to not mess up this high profile case after the bungling of the Yosemite Tourist Murder Case (they were marginally involved.) Brocchini's testimony might have been strong enough for the jurors to feel confident in the abilities of the MPD. Aside from that, there are few other reasonable suspects in this case. Chucklehead Peterson provided his alibi location right where the bodies were dumped......anyone with brains would have said he was FAAAAR away from there that morning......maybe even with his mistress, no?

GnBeret
11-05-2004, 11:17 AM
Viewed on an objective basis, doesn't appear to me to clear hurdle of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, jury view will be subjective, and there does appear to be sufficient evidence to allow the jury to return a verdict of guilty on the basis of inferences drawn from that evidence. As he's such an unlikeable person and this appears to be one those cases where most believe he's guilty, even though the State can't produce any direct evidence, my guess is that he'll be found guilty... and the conviction will be upheld on appeal.

VenusGoddess
11-05-2004, 11:27 AM
Do you think so? Wouldn't it be hard to deny an overturn of the verdict if the reasoning was, "Well, he's just such an asshole...no one liked him...and besides...we THINK he did it..."

Wasn't that the same problem with the OJ case? The state couldn't PROVE he did it...

Jay Zeno
11-05-2004, 12:07 PM
Circumstantial evidence in most states can be used for conviction, if that circumstantial evidence is compelling enough. In California, I believe that the prosecution needs to present some shred of direct evidence in support of circumstantial evidence.

Tigerlilly
11-05-2004, 01:24 PM
From what I have seen I think he is guilty- I am hoping the jury will give him life w/o parole.

I don't believe in the death penalty .

Lilith
11-05-2004, 03:02 PM
I think he'll be convicted and have the sentence overturned or lessened to nothing upon appeal. I have no knowledge of California criminal law, though, so that's just a hunch.

Six months in jail, maximum. The bastard.

hardkandee
11-05-2004, 03:10 PM
As much as I think he did it too, I don't think he's going away for it.
There's just not enough hard evidence to push beyond the "shadow of a doubt".

On a related note, I don't think I'm all too pleased with the "Laci Peterson" law either. I mean, to be charged with two counts of murder seems like it should be under different cicurmstances, not ONLY because a woman is pregnant. I'm not sure though... I'm kind of torn. What do you think?:-\

Tigerlilly
11-05-2004, 03:15 PM
As for the Laci Law- I think it needs to be rewritten so to exclude the anti-choice language.

In the case of murdering of a pregnant woman I think 2 counts is justified- why ? Because the woman had already made her choice to give birth.

It's all about the womans choice for me.

VenusGoddess
11-05-2004, 03:46 PM
I agree, TL. The Laci Law was pretty much written that anyone who murdered a pregnant woman would be charged with, not just her murder, but the murder of her unborn child. If I am not mistaken, if the baby somehow survives, then the person would be charged with the mother's murder and some kind of "reckless endangerment" or something along those lines for the child.

The law does need some "tweeking"...but it's a start.

Jay Zeno
11-05-2004, 04:18 PM
I'm not understanding the principle at all. If the fetus is wanted, he/she has full rights - if the fetus is not wanted, he/she has no rights?

I haven't followed the case, other than some very damaging admissions - but they were implied, not a confession. We know, as human beings know each other, that he did it. Whether that rises to legal rationale for a conviction is another matter. It's proper that the State actually has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

MisfitBunnie
11-05-2004, 05:02 PM
I think he is guilty as hell. The evidence may be circumstancial but it is pretty damn good circumstancial evidence.

Want to talk about convicting somebody and sentencing them to death with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE AT ALL?

Shortly after three eight-year-old boys were found mutilated and murdered in West Memphis, Arkansas, local newspapers stated the killers had been caught. The police assured the public that the three teenagers in custody were definitely responsible for these horrible crimes. Evidence?

The same police officers coerced an error-filled “confession” from Jessie Misskelley Jr., who is mentally handicapped. They subjected him to 12 hours of questioning without counsel or parental consent, audio-taping only two fragments totaling 46 minutes. Jessie recanted it that evening, but it was too late— Misskelley, Jason Baldwin and Damien Echols were all arrested on June 3, 1993, and convicted of murder in early 1994.

Although there was no physical evidence, murder weapon, motive, or connection to the victims, the prosecution pathetically resorted to presenting black hair and clothing, heavy metal t-shirts, and Stephen King novels as proof that the boys were sacrificed in a satanic cult ritual. Unfathomably, Echols was sentenced to death, Baldwin received life without parole, and Misskelley got life plus 40.

For over 11 years, The West Memphis Three have been imprisoned for crimes they didn’t commit. Echols waits in solitary confinement for the lethal injection our tax dollars will pay for. They were all condemned by their poverty, incompetent defense, satanic panic and a rush to judgment.

I have been involved in this case for over 6 years now and these three men are still appealing their convictions and re-testing DNA samples (that back during the trial, weren't linked to them but that didn't matter cos they were "debil worshippin' sums of a bitches!::) ). I believe they are completely innocent and were railroaded by the police and a town filled with satanic panic. The cops also convieniently "lost" evidence.

For more on the case go here to the official Free THe West Memphis Three Website...

www.wm3.org (http://www.wm3.org/)

NinaDaisy
11-05-2004, 05:11 PM
Wasn't that the same problem with the OJ case? The state couldn't PROVE he did it...You mean BESIDES OJ's blood being all over the murder scene? :detective

BTW, the West Memphis Three thing makes my blood boil.

Watch "Paradise Lost" both One and Two. You'll be unable to sleep for days from the combination of the horror of the crimes commited and the combination of the egregious miscarriage of justice that was commited in the case.

To paraphrase Peterson's attorney, being a smug asshole isn't a crime. However, I still think he did it. He seems to have that bizarre upper middle class white dude "above it all" attitude. The kind that makes me walk away from a customer within seconds the the moment I smell it on him at work. Y'all know the ones I'm talking about...

montythegeek
11-05-2004, 07:50 PM
The only thing I am conviced of is that Gloria Aldred deserves the death penalty.

VenusGoddess
11-06-2004, 12:57 AM
LOL...Monty. :D

The state in the OJ case could not PROVE that OJ committed the crimes because they could not produce the murder weapon...they could not provide hard evidence that linked him with the crimes. Do we KNOW that he did it? Yes...however, with the shoddy handling of the case, they lost so many of their "hot tickets" that they had to settle. In some cases, it results in a mistrial which can be good for the prosecution...in OJ's case, it resulted in an acquital.

I believe that one of two things will happen with Scott: 1) He'll be found not guilty by the very fact that even though the state has TONS of circumstantial evidence, none of that evidence DIRECTLY connects him to the crime; or 2) the jury will turn in a "hung jury" providing, both sides, a chance to "polish" their cases.

Misfit...your case is an exception...however, your boys were convicted based on EVIDENCE that "connected" them to a crime (a confession, etc). It may have been faulty evidence...it may have been coerced...but, in a jury's mind, it was evidence. THAT'S why they were convicted. In the Peterson case, there is NO evidence. No confession...no crime weapon...no proof. It's just the Prosecuter's "version" against the defense's "version". You cannot convict someone based on circumstantial evidence. If there was a direct link (murder weapon or bloody clothes) and everything else was circumstantial...then you can convict...however, this is not the case here.

BTW...there is another case about a man who was sentenced to life in prison...served 22 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. It's a thoroughly fascinating and yet totally sad story about this man...it's in the current issue of GQ (with Colin Farrell).

stant
11-06-2004, 05:49 AM
In the Peterson case, there is NO evidence. No confession...no crime weapon...no proof. It's just the Prosecuter's "version" against the defense's "version". You cannot convict someone based on circumstantial evidence. If there was a direct link (murder weapon or bloody clothes) and everything else was circumstantial...then you can convict...however, this is not the case here.

Circumstantial evidence is any evidence which indirectly implies the truth of some other fact. In a murder case, this would of course be the culpability of the defendant in a murder. Most evidence in any criminal trial is often circumstantial, indeed circumstantial evidence is often the most reliable.

The example most often used by prosecutors when explaining the concept to juries is that of a young child standing before an empty cookie jar with crumbs on his or her mouth. The crumbs on the child's mouth is circumstantial evidence he or she ate the cookies. (Your examples of bloody clothes and a murder weapon are also circumstantial evidence.)

Examples of direct evidence in a criminal case would be eyewitness testimony of the crime or a confession from the defendant. Testimony of a cop watching you speed or a radar gun readout are direct evidence.

The CSI TV series are based entirely on the gathering of circumstantial evidence, which on occassion is so overwhelming the perp confesses, ala Perry Mason and Columbo.

Proof is not a defined finish line. If it were, trials would be unnecessary. Instead juries evaluate the weight and credibility of the evidence before them, and then only those 12 people decide whether the state has met its burden. A person absolutely can be convicted with only circumstantial evidence. Happens ever day.

In the Peterson case, I found the taped phone conversations with his girlfriend to be powerful evidence of his consciouness of guilt. (Another type of circumstantial evidence, like the slow speed Bronco chase in OJ.) I hear the expert battle over the corpses and time of death was fairly even, however.

I lean towards conviction, based on the a*hole factor NinaD mentioned. In cases like this, the jury may just be looking for something to hang their hat on so they can convict the mofo, and then go home and sleep well.

Put me down for 50 to convict.

MojoJojo
11-06-2004, 06:02 AM
Well, Venus...actually you can convict someone with circumstantial evidence....but it has to be convincing arguments. I have a feeling this was not. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think he's going to be convicted. If that happens, I hope the jury that is selected after Lacy's father blows that farker's head off also sets him free.

VenusGoddess
11-06-2004, 08:11 AM
Thanks for the clarification Stant! :D

MisfitBunnie
11-06-2004, 11:00 AM
Misfit...your case is an exception...however, your boys were convicted based on EVIDENCE that "connected" them to a crime (a confession, etc). It may have been faulty evidence...it may have been coerced...but, in a jury's mind, it was evidence. THAT'S why they were convicted. In the Peterson case, there is NO evidence. No confession...no crime weapon...no proof. It's just the Prosecuter's "version" against the defense's "version". You cannot convict someone based on circumstantial evidence. If there was a direct link (murder weapon or bloody clothes) and everything else was circumstantial...then you can convict...however, this is not the case here.Actually, all three teens were tried in seperate trials. Jessie Misskelley, the mentally retarded kid who gave the "confession" had his own seperate trial in a different county because his statement implicated Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin. Jessie's statement was allowed to be used during his trial but was not allowed to be used in Damien and Jason's trial even though Jessie's statement was leaked to the press within days after he made it and it was not allowed to be used as evidence in Damien and Jason's trial even though everybody knew about Jessie's statement through the press and it was mentioned a couple times in the courtroom in front of the jury but the jury was told to "disreguard that statement."::) Damien and Jason were still convicted based on Jessie's statement which was FILLED with holes and inconsistances. He couldn't even tell the police what time of day it happened...day or night. He said the boys were raped, even though the medical examiner testified that there were no signs of rape to the anus or the mouth.

All three of them were convicted on horribly filmsy heresay evidence. This town wanted somebody hung from the highest tree for what was done to those little boys and they sure did hang somebody...but not the people who did it. They got to walk free...

VenusGoddess
11-06-2004, 01:53 PM
Eh...can't comment much as I do not know anything about the case.

There are many such problems, however, in every state. There were several men released from death row in Illinois after a decade or so. It was proved that they never, physically, could have committed the crimes that they were incarcerated for. Dishonest police officers, shady prosecutors...corrupt judges...the list goes on. It's sad...and it needs to be stopped...but only the citizens can really stop it by demanding action. Not sitting and complaining about what's not happening. However, as much as most people like sticking their noses in other people's business...those same people are very much "against" getting involved. Sad.

MisfitBunnie
11-06-2004, 09:34 PM
I agree Venus. The people who are involved in the Wm3 case do a lot to help the 3 men who were wrongfully convicted. People donate money to help them pay for their lawyer fees, visit them in prison, write them letters, send money to their comminsary funds, ect. For 11 years now we have fought to bring attention to this travesty of justice and we are suceeding one day at a time. We also have a lot of celebrities who are involved in the case. One day, these men who have had over a decade of their lives taken away from them for something they did not do, will be free. And I am glad I was one of those people to help make that possible. :)

Rhiannon
11-09-2004, 02:10 PM
Wanted to bump this one up because the jury's supposedly "deliberating".There was talk about a juror getting dismissed, although I haven't heard anything else about it. They're saying that there is a good chance that the jury will be deadlocked. Gah.. Hook him, Book him, and Cook him already. Sheesh.

Vixie
11-09-2004, 04:17 PM
Well, earlier today they got rid of a juror that couldn't make up her mind, they're supposed to bring another juror in. I think we may have a decision by tomorrow morning. That SOB did it! He's guilty!

ViXie
www.Sexxxy-Me.com

GnBeret
11-09-2004, 04:23 PM
You cannot convict someone based on circumstantial evidence.
VG -

While that may or may not be the case in California, as I have no knowledge of specific California statutory criminal law and California may well have enacted a statute requiring at least some direct evidence in order for a conviction to be upheld, the general rule nationwide is to the contrary, i.e., a conviction based on circumstantial evidence alone is perfectly valid. All that's required is for the appellate court to be able to view all of the evidence adduced in a light most favorable to the prosecution and see that if the jury accepted same as true it would be able to arrive at a conclusion of guilt. Way more people are convicted in this manner than you realize.

VenusGoddess
11-09-2004, 04:40 PM
Here's some info from Court TV:

http://courttv.com/trials/peterson/110904_pm_ctv.html

http://courttv.com/trials/peterson/

VenusGoddess
11-09-2004, 04:43 PM
VG -

While that may or may not be the case in California, as I have no knowledge of specific California statutory criminal law and California may well have enacted a statute requiring at least some direct evidence in order for a conviction to be upheld, the general rule nationwide is to the contrary, i.e., a conviction based on circumstantial evidence alone is perfectly valid. All that's required is for the appellate court to be able to view all of the evidence adduced in a light most favorable to the prosecution and see that if the jury accepted same as true it would be able to arrive at a conclusion of guilt. Way more people are convicted in this manner than you realize.
It may be just me...but it seems that a lot of people are convicted wrongly because of this method. How many people have been exonerated because it was later proven that the evidence was not complete or completely circumstantial and the jurors made a bad decision.

After reading this article about Peterson's jury, though...they dismissed a woman who would not "bend" because she couldn't understand how he could do something so heinous...it may very well be a guilty verdict.

Rhiannon
11-09-2004, 04:43 PM
Well, earlier today they got rid of a juror that couldn't make up her mind, they're supposed to bring another juror in. I think we may have a decision by tomorrow morning. That SOB did it! He's guilty!

ViXie

Ah, okay Vixie.. Thanks, I hadn't heard anything more about it. I know that the judge had spoken to all the jurors and urged them not to change their minds just for the sake of agreeing and reaching a verdict. That was the part that worried me, thinking that the bastard could get away with it.

One thing that my husband said earlier though, was even if he gets away with it in court, he won't get away with it while he's walking around free. Someone will get him.

I do hope though, that they find him guilty. Laci and Conner need justice so that they may finally rest in peace. Whether it's the death penalty, or life in prison, I don't care, I just want him punished for what he's done.

GnBeret
11-09-2004, 05:09 PM
It may be just me...but it seems that a lot of people are convicted wrongly because of this method. How many people have been exonerated because it was later proven that the evidence was not complete or completely circumstantial and the jurors made a bad decision.

After reading this article about Peterson's jury, though...they dismissed a woman who would not "bend" because she couldn't understand how he could do something so heinous...it may very well be a guilty verdict.
You're absolutely correct - there ARE a lot of people wrongfully convicted because of this method. The best example of this is with rape. DOJ has begun going back and testing all existing samples. At the present time, about 3% of samples have been tested and, based on statistical projections, DOJ estimates there are probably 20,000+ guys wrongfully imprisoned right now. Unfortunately, if a woman gets on stand and says "yep, it's him, he did it," jury will almost always convict. But what we're finding out is that eyewitness testimony is one of the LEAST reliable forms of evidence. This is why I mentioned possible California statutory requirements - some States have begun to try to solve dilemma by requiring something in addition to either just circumstantial evidence or only one eyewitnesses' testimony. Obviously, is big problem though, as we certainly don't want to start erring in other direction and allowing rapists, etc. to get away with it either.

VenusGoddess
11-09-2004, 08:00 PM
^ You should read the article I mentioned...it's in the Colin Farrell edition of GQ. A man who spent 22 years in a maximum security prison for a crime he did not commit and the woman who worked for 11 years to get him out...

You'd be absolutely floored...

GnBeret
11-10-2004, 07:13 AM
^ You should read the article I mentioned...it's in the Colin Farrell edition of GQ. A man who spent 22 years in a maximum security prison for a crime he did not commit and the woman who worked for 11 years to get him out...

You'd be absolutely floored...
Will do... but doubt it'll even phase, much less floor me, 'cause unless they knew he was innocent (or at least had evidence making his guilt so unlikely as to be impossible to convict) and nevertheless decided to put him away anyway, I've seen worse. And once again, that too happens far more frequently than you (or most of the rest of America) realizes.:-[

VenusGoddess
11-10-2004, 07:34 AM
^ Wait'll you read the article. I've worked for lawyers for almost 8 years...and thought I'd heard just about everything...and then this article came along. He was convicted on blood type (Type O...which 40% of the black population has) even though the boxers were twice his size (that were left at the scene) and the little girl who was raped said it wasn't him...when he was finally released 22 years later, the sex crimes unit director refused to take him off the "sex offenders" list even though he was found "not guilty" of the crimes. Grrrrrr...it's pissing me off again just thinking of it.

I'll let you read the article. It's very angering...it made me want to fly down there and smack some sense into those people's heads...

Vixie
11-10-2004, 09:26 AM
Rhiannon~ I thought we would have a decision by now but not yet...I'm concerned that at this point he may just walk away from it. But yeah someone will get him...he will definitely get his.

ViXie
www.Sexxxy-Me.com

NinaDaisy
11-10-2004, 02:27 PM
The foreman of the jury is now gone.

I smell a mistrial/hung jury.

Rhiannon
11-10-2004, 05:01 PM
I just caught that, Nina.. This is ridiculous. They're not even letting us know why they let her go either. There's also a gag order on both of the dismissed ones, so they can't let us know either until it's all over. Ugh.

I definitely don't like the looks of this.

GnBeret
11-10-2004, 05:38 PM
The foreman of the jury is now gone.

I smell a mistrial/hung jury.
Yea, apparently some of the jurors are having problems following the judges instructions regarding the law. And that being the case, a hung jury's actually the better outcome, 'cause everytime a juror is removed it's a built-in basis for appeal, and the odds are always in favor of the prosecution on a retrial as defense is literally "locked in" re their entire case, whereas prosecution gets to regroup and study everything from top to bottom before they take another run at the defendant. And more often than not, that proves to be a decisive advantage.

If they hang, the split will be very telling - prosecution pulls 8 off of this jury and he's done; prosecution's presentation of case will improve dramatically 2nd time around.

Rhiannon
11-10-2004, 05:54 PM
What I'm confused about, is aren't they supposed to be "sequestered"? How did the first dismissed juror do her "own research"? Aren't they sheltered from any outside things like that? They're supposedly only given the evidence to look over and nothing else.

It's very confusing.

scarlett_vancouver
11-10-2004, 06:11 PM
I just heard on the radio (here in Canada) that a juror was dismissed because she had 'feelings' for one of the prosecutors (Mark Geragos) and hadn't paid attention during the trial. Wtf?

madmaxine
11-10-2004, 06:15 PM
Ugh, what a rumor. It takes all kinds....I was assuming some of the jurors were "having feelings" for book deals....you know, $$$$$........

Rhiannon
11-10-2004, 06:51 PM
Oh, absolutely Maxine.. Once this is all said and done, the jurors will be singing like canaries. You'll see them on every talk show on the circuit, and probably even in People magazine.

They'll all get their 15 minutes, no doubt.

VenusGoddess
11-10-2004, 07:17 PM
Rhiannon...the jury has only been sequestered since Nov. 3. She was most likely doing her research before then, but during the trial. The jurors job is not to do side research, but to take the evidence that was presented within the courtroom...within the case and make a decision based on that.

This juror most likely said mentioned that she's done research...blah, blah, blah and got called on it by the others.

The jury foreman is a shock, though. Being that he's a lawyer/doctor....seems like he would have had to do something really stupid/bad to get kicked out. He should know better! I smell a really bad legal battle coming on, though... Ick!

VenusGoddess
11-10-2004, 07:43 PM
Here's an update:

http://courttv.com/trials/peterson/111004_ctv.html

My boss is quoted in there!! Yippee!! The guy from Chicago... :D