Scott Peterson Trial Verdict

[Adam Y.]

On the other hand, O. J. Simpson was a celebrity who was suspected of brutally killing his wife and her lover. Let’s face it! He was acquitted, in spite of overwhelming evidence, because 12 people liked him, or at least felt his pain. I do not see justice being served in either case. When the media takes hold, truth, justice, and the American way suffers the consequence.

There was an educational show that you should watch. Unsolved History did a special where they pretty much supported every single piece of evidence that the defense cited and thus give rise of reasonable doubt.

[jonathan lall]

To speak to what Adam Y. said -- because we're talking about justice in famous murder cases here -- there most definitely was reasonable doubt in the OJ case. To put it simply, OJ's all-star Defense team trounced the Prosecution with some downright brilliant tactics and some really good points. Because of this, OJ deserved to be acquited. There, I said it.

Originally Posted by The Unlearned Masses

OMG!!!!!11

I find it disturbing that many people don't realize this. Think of it this way: of course he killed his wife, but would you rather they just hang him without any substantial evidence? Gee, that sets a good precedent for the famous accused. I always thought due process was a little convoluted. Why not forgo all that "accused has rights" and "fair trial" mumbo jumbo? Perhaps Scott Peterson is a bit too famous now to be not guilty anyway, even though there's even less evidence pointing at Peterson than there was at OJ.

Please.

Yeah yeah yeah the media sways everything...elections, criminal cases, etc...

Old News....

Interesting news I heard watching the Abrams Report on MSNBC a few days before the verdict. When that juror was tossed off the jury, they said that she was "feeling pity" and in court when the defense played an audio tape of scott being interviewed by the police, he started crying during the interview. The former juror started crying too and basically showed pity for him, while apparently the rest of the jurors basically sat there and looked at both the juror and the defense team and basically rolled their eyes.

Oddly enough I find it ironic how quickly a verdict was reached after the lady juror was removed....if Mark Gerigos doesn't appeal the case on grounds of juror misconduct or some kind of conspiracy reasoning, I will be very shocked (let alone most verdicts are appealed anyway...). Basically with the timing of that, it wouldn't shock me to see the verdict of the case overturned if that would happen. Although from what has been made public it does look like Scott Peterson murdered his wife and unborn child, we'll never know for sure...there's a lot that isn't made public to the average follower of cases that stays inside, so from the lack of knowing what goes on inside the courtroom, I don't see how anyone can take sides...but don't mind me, I'm just an armchair lawyer, like 99.9999999999999999999% of America in this case...


On the other hand what I found ironic about this case is a reference to the 1993 Stallone movie, Demolition Man, where at the beginning when they were pulling up the list of convicted prisoners up for parole, there was a name up for parole up that day along with Wesley Snipes' character....

and that name was: "Peterson, Scott"

pretty weird if you ask me

[Adam Y.]

Oddly enough I find it ironic how quickly a verdict was reached after the lady juror was removed....if Mark Gerigos doesn't appeal the case on grounds of juror misconduct or some kind of conspiracy reasoning, I will be very shocked (let alone most verdicts are appealed anyway...). Basically with the timing of that, it wouldn't shock me to see the verdict of the case overturned if that would happen. Although from what has been made public it does look like Scott Peterson murdered his wife and unborn child, we'll never know for sure...there's a lot that isn't made public to the average follower of cases that stays inside, so from the lack of knowing what goes on inside the courtroom, I don't see how anyone can take sides...but don't mind me, I'm just an armchair lawyer, like 99.9999999999999999999% of America in this case...

Wrong. They found a verdict after the lawyer/doctor was released not the lady.

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

Wrong. They found a verdict after the lawyer/doctor was released not the lady.

The lawyer/doctor was the 2nd juror released in 2 days, but the attention went to the lady because she wouldn't talk over the case with any of the other jurors, she had her decision, and obviously it wasn't what the rest of them had come up with....which was guilty. There is still no reason (from what ive heard and read) why the 2nd juror was removed.

[MikeDubreuil]

CNN.com

Originally Posted by CNN Article Dated 11-12-2004

On Wednesday, Judge Alfred A. Delucchi dismissed the foreman, a man in his mid-40s who has medical and law degrees. The judge did not disclose his reasoning...
The action came a day after the removal of another juror who apparently did her own research on the case, violating the judge's order to consider only evidence presented at trial.

I don't understand how a juror can be dismissed with no reason

[VGMasterShadow]

Well, another case laid to rest. This is good news for Laci's family, and lets hope that they can go on the rest of their lives after this tragedy.

[Greg Ross]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

CNN.com

I don't understand how a juror can be dismissed with no reason

I agree that a juror shouldn't be dismissed without reason, but that's not what the article says. It says "The judge did not disclose his reasoning." You're not suggesting, are you, that the judge should be required to disclose his reasons to the media? I don't think I need to know all the jurors' personal affairs which might result in them being dismissed from a jury.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by gwross

I agree that a juror shouldn't be dismissed without reason, but that's not what the article says. It says "The judge did not disclose his reasoning." You're not suggesting, are you, that the judge should be required to disclose his reasons to the media? I don't think I need to know all the jurors' personal affairs which might result in them being dismissed from a jury.

Absolutely, there's only one condition where a judge should not disclose the reason for letting a juror go and that is that if the reason would violate the juror's personal privacy. For instance, if a juror has to leave due to a death in the familly the judge should tell the media, "the juror was dismissed by request do to personal matters."

Who knows...the male juror could have been dismissed because he was the only one who thought Mr. Peterson was innocent, and that was the reason he was dismissed- to avoid a hung jury.

I have been involved in matters of the legal system where if what was happening behind the scenes got media coverage there would be a public outcry. That is why I am for as much open coverage as reasonably possible.

[David Kelly]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

Absolutely, there's only one condition where a judge should not disclose the reason for letting a juror go and that is that if the reason would violate the juror's personal privacy. For instance, if a juror has to leave due to a death in the familly the judge should tell the media, "the juror was dismissed by request do to personal matters."

Who knows...the male juror could have been dismissed because he was the only one who thought Mr. Peterson was innocent, and that was the reason he was dismissed- to avoid a hung jury.

I have been involved in matters of the legal system where if what was happening behind the scenes got media coverage there would be a public outcry. That is why I am for as much open coverage as reasonably possible.

It sounds like another conspiracy...