PETERSON JURY FEARED DEADLOCKED

drudgereport.com ^ | Nov. 8, 2004 | crushelits

[Calamari]

What were the possibilities that could be predicted?

Let's see:

Not Guilty
Guilty of 1st or 2nd degree murder
Hung jury

1 in 3 chance of any of the above.

[xsrdx]

Everybody keeps citing the "circumstantial" evidence in this case, but even that evidence is weak, weak, weak.

The prosecutions basic assertion is that SP is a scumbag, and his wife is dead, ergo, he did it. Oh, and he has a boat, and his wife was found in the water.

Did he do it? Heck yes, probably so. But you can't convict somebody based on what amounts to total speculation.

Just ask OJ.

Maybe he and SP can start up a new PI business, to look for the "real killers".

[Dante3]

From what I heard, that one juror, the fireman, had an attitude problem. I wonder if he is the one who refuses to deliberate.

In any case the prosecutors sure proved beyond a resonable doubt (some here apparently expect beyond any doubt -- which is absurd) and did a good job. There is the timeline and there is the place where Scott went "fishing."

[spectre]

"I am 99.99% sure he did it.. but I'm also about 80% sure that he'll get off."

IF you are almost 100% sure he did it, then there was enough circumstantial and consciousness of guilt evidence to convince you. So why should the Jury think any differently? The jury may be hung, but Scott won't go home..

sw

[AggieCPA]

I have to say, and I'm speaking generally - not to this thread, I am sick and tired of Scott Peterson. I think he is guilty but I am sick to death of all this publicity.

I think all this handwringing and discussion is absurd - none of it would have happened if Lacy was 400lbs with a face like a mud fence (or like TuhRAYzuh's).

There are a lot of cases out there just as heinous as this which don't get the attention this one does but I don't think they should be headline news either.
Just my .02.

[BOOTSTICK]

Let's see, no cause of death, no proof baby was not born alive, no motive, such as insurance, no evidence of a death scene, no blood, and one hair on a pair of pliers. Time for Scott to once again breath the air of freedom

[Fitzcarraldo]

Someday they will find those anchors.

[HardStarboard]

I would not doubt that some mindless liberal female is arguing that....

"He lost his wife and child, that should be punishment enough"!

Along similar lines to the hung jury that let off the two guys that murdered their parents.....

The jury system depends on there being intelligent jurors....the system is breaking down in America because of our public education system.

[Arizona Carolyn]

and he can't afford Geregos (sp) for a second go-round. His parents are mortgaged to the hilt over this.

[NormsRevenge]

When's he gonna be on Oprah?

[freepatriot32]

Updated: 03:44 PM EST Peterson Jury May Not Reach Verdict Judge Urges Jurors to Keep an Open Mind in Deliberations By BRIAN SKOLOFF, AP REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (Nov. 8) - In a sign of possible discord in the jury room, the judge in Scott Peterson's murder case lectured the panel Monday about the importance of deliberating with an open mind. ''Do not hesitate to change your opinion for the purpose of reaching a verdict if you can do so,'' Judge Alfred A. Delucchi said after summoning jurors to the courtroom just an hour and half after they resumed deliberations Scott Peterson and his attorneys listen to prosecutor Rick Distaso in court last week. ''The attitude and conduct of jurors at all times is very important,'' he added. ''It is rarely helpful for a juror at the beginning of deliberations to express an emphatic opinion on the case.'' The jurors listened with serious, even grim expressions before they were sent back into the jury room to deliberate. It was not immediately clear what led to the judge's instructions, but trial observers speculated jurors are beginning to reach a deadlock. ''They're stuck,'' said Jim Hammer, a former prosecutor and trial regular. The judge ''clearly has indications that they're beginning to hang.'' Earlier Monday, Delucchi denied a defense motion for a mistrial after jurors examined the boat prosecutors claim Peterson used to dispose of his wife's body. Defense lawyer Mark Geragos claimed jurors violated the judge's orders by doing ''a juror experiment'' when several panelists got inside the boat and rocked it from side to side. The defense has argued that it would have been nearly impossible for Peterson to have heaved his wife's 153-pound body over the edge of the boat without tipping. As an alternative to a mistrial, Geragos asked the judge to show jurors a videotaped experiment performed by the defense apparently showing that the boat would have tipped. Delucchi denied the motion. Peterson is charged with two counts of murder in the deaths of his wife, Laci, and the fetus she carried. Prosecutors claim Peterson killed Laci around Dec. 24, 2002, then sunk her weighted body in the bay. Defense lawyers claim someone else abducted Laci and killed her, then framed her husband. The sequestered jury began deliberations Wednesday and recessed for the weekend. Jurors were monitored in a hotel where they could watch only sports and movies on television, and could use a computer without access to the Internet. They were forbidden from discussing the case. Jurors have two choices should they decide to convict Peterson - first- or second-degree murder. First-degree convictions, carrying the death penalty of life without parole, would mean jurors believe Peterson planned the killings in advance. Second-degree murder convictions don't require a finding of premeditation, and carry sentences of 15-years-to-life for each count. Also Monday, the presiding judge of the courthouse ruled against media attorneys who were seeking to have cameras stationed about 40 feet down a hallway from the courtroom. Last week, Delucchi banned television and still cameras from the courtroom for the verdict, but said he would allow a live audio broadcast. 11/08/04 14:53 EST

[Joe Hadenuf]

This is a no brainer. They didn't have any hard evidence against this guy. What a waste of tax payer money.

[Moby Grape]

"There is plenty of evidence to convict Scott. Someone just plain adores Scott or identifies with him."

I fear you may be right...like the women juror in the Menendez brothers trial.

[Joe Hadenuf]

There is plenty of evidence to convict Scott.

Really, where's the proof or evidence that shows he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

[Josh in PA]

Agree with you. Evidence against Peterson isn't that great.

OJ should have been executed by now though with the evidence against him.

[Josh in PA]

Because there's enough reasonable doubt, that our criminal court system goes by, for Peterson to get off..

Just because I'm positive someone did it, doesn't necessarily mean they will be convicted

[calex59]

The guy is a jerk granted, but I can't see that they proved anything except he fooled around on his wife and lied to his girlfriend so she would sleep with him. If that were grounds for murder about 40 % of the married men in this country would be charged. They haven't proved anything, they no evidence circumstantial or otherwise. Speculation is all they have. For instance, they brought in a mop and bucket they said Peterson used to clean up the blood after killing his wife, however, there were no traces of blood on the mop or bucket...and I will tell you it is almost impossible to get rid of blood off of a mop or a bucket. This should not have even been allowed as evidence, everyone owns a mop and bucket(except perhaps M. Moore)

[Fitzcarraldo]

where's the proof or evidence that shows he was guilty

Let's say Scott went to Timbukto the night of Dec 23rd and much later Lacy and Conner's bodies were found there. That would be an incriminating correlation. Likewise, the present case, though the distance is not as great.

[Fitzcarraldo]

where's the proof or evidence that shows he was guilty

Let's say Scott went to Timbukto the night of Dec 23rd and much later Lacy and Conner's bodies were found there. That would be an incriminating correlation. Likewise, the present case, though the distance is not as great.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Guilt is rather often determined by the likability of the defendant, not the evidence.