Apparently, the jury in the Scott Peterson trial have told the judge may not be able to reach a unanimous decision. The judge asked them to take some more time, and not to be afraid to consider changing their minds.
Quite honestly, Peterson is an ass. He probably had something to do with Lacy’s death. However, without any physical evidence tying him to the actual murder - did anyone really expect a unanimous verdict? The entire case is circumstantial. There will be some jurors who will have no problem convicting him on circumstantial evidence, alone. Yet, there will be hold-outs who really don’t want the prospect of putting a man in prison for life, or worse - putting him to death, based on circumstantial evidence, alone.
My one and only question surrounding this case is - - where is the physical evidence? In this day and age - it is near impossible to commit a murder without some sort of physical evidence that will tie you to it.
The hair in the boat? Big deal. I have long blonde hair - - Chris frequently has a strand or two of my hairs on his shirt/sweater/jacket after we’ve shared a hug.
Where is the blood? The weapon? The cleansers used to clean up the mess?
This whole case is confusing. And long.
Did I mention confusing and long?
In my non-professional, non-expert, inexperienced, arm-chair juror opinon - I fully expect a hung jury.
7:09 pm on November 8th, 2004
There is something to what you say; however, I want to point out one small thing that some may not know.
Outside of a confession from the accused — EVERY case is “circumstantial.” All evidence, outside of a confession is “circumstantial.”
The jury instruction, I believe, on the weight they must place on the evidence is not set in stone. They have the right, as a jury, to place whatever weight on whatever piece of evidence they choose. (Or all of them.)
It basically boils down to whom they believe more — the prosecution or the defense. And the jury must decide — beyond a reasonable doubt — whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is credible. If they have a doubt, they must decide on a lesser charge or acquit.
And, based on my experience as a juror in a criminal trial, the judge has probably told them to work it out. Outside of drastic circumstances, this judge will not allow a hung jury.
This is MY unprofessional, non-expert opinion.
7:13 pm on November 8th, 2004
Lisa, I’ve been wondering……
Why has this case gotten such an enormous amount of publicity to where similar murders have not?
Not to down play the crime that was committed, but what is so special about Scott Peterson when sadly, this isn’t an uncommon occurance?
7:13 pm on November 8th, 2004
He may fight to not have one - but if, at the end of the day, they come back hung - the judge really has no choice.
Although - he may keep sending them back into chambers until the cows come home. lol
7:15 pm on November 8th, 2004
Oh, and what actor do you think will sign up to play Scott Peterson in the made for TV movie that’s sure to come of this?
My money’s on Ben Affleck…..any takers?
7:16 pm on November 8th, 2004
I have a theory on that, right or wrong - - but as with missing children, rapes, abductions, kidnappings and murders - - the cuter the girl - the more press exposure they get. I”m sure I’m wrong - - it just seems so.
It kills me the way the media ‘picks and chooses’ the cases they are going to pick apart from end to end. Hypothetically speaking - what if, tomorrow - someone steps forward and confesses to Lacy’s murder?
Probably won’t happen - but if it did… Because of big media - Scott Peterson will forever be marked for life, no matter where he goes.
I’ve always said that there should be a gag order on these cases until a verdict is found - - idealistic and unrealistic, I know
7:21 pm on November 8th, 2004
Not only was Lacey cute, but she was very pregnant. Also, Scott is the stereotypical “dream” as far as looks go. But the ass inside brays through. Arrogance, narcissist, yuck, yuck!
Lisa, I hear you on leaving hair behind whereever I go. My fiance calls it “marking my territory.” *snicker*
One day, the janitor came in and vacuumed my office. As I was leaving for the day, I was embarrassed to see a wad of my hair that he had apparently pulled of the vacuum roller. I, of course, had to remove the evidence.
7:22 pm on November 8th, 2004
I would definently agree with your interesting point of view.
7:24 pm on November 8th, 2004
That was to Lisa….
I’m not going to get into Scott’s looks….
7:25 pm on November 8th, 2004
Ben Affleck or Matt Damon for sure
8:46 pm on November 8th, 2004
His looks, which are no doubt vital:roll: aside, what about the merits of the case?
8:53 pm on November 8th, 2004
Huh? Merits of the case? You mean there’s a case?? I thought it was to be a verdict on his looks vs. nasty actions???
8:54 pm on November 8th, 2004
Hey, Lisa, for all the help you gave me, I wrote you a poem … (I will make you love me, I will … )
http://www.nicehat.com/blog
8:55 pm on November 8th, 2004
Lots of damning circumstantial evidience to be sure, Jay. If they had even one shred of physical evidence - no matter how small, to go along with all of the other . . I can see a solid jury decision towards guilty.
Scott has a flimsy excuse for all of the coincidences and odd behaviour - which is why, I think, he didn’t take the stand, which would allow the prosecution to blow holes in his stories all day long.
If I were a juror facing sending a man to his death, or life in prison without the possibility of parole - - I’d be saying “Give me some fibers . . . some DNA . . some blood . . give me a witness . . give me something physical that ties him to these murders” - - otherwise I’d have to say that a cheater does not a murderer make. Stupid does not a murderer make, either.
8:56 pm on November 8th, 2004
hey, no one has ever written a poem for me before!
Gotta go read!
9:03 pm on November 8th, 2004
Lisa,
I have not followed the case at all but I agree with respect to circumstantial evidence. In this age, when forensic evidence is vital, if they cannot provide any, then something is wrong.
One other point. So many women are murdered, even pregnant women, and this case gets the attention of the nation. There is sadness in life everyday.
9:11 pm on November 8th, 2004
The media is constantly pissing me off in regards to cases like these. The way they pick and choose the cases that they will follow and highlight.
I have the same problem with rape cases and how they protect the victims identity. I understand it - - but, quite honestly - I think the identity of BOTH should be protected . . and release the identity of the accused after a verdict is found. A rape allegation will follow a person whether the allegation is true or not . . but the victim, if she is lying or making false accusations . . goes on with his/her life with no smudges on their character.
Not saying that victims shouldn’t be protected - - but I just think there should be some limitations on what the media can/can’t do before a person is found guilty.
10:16 pm on November 8th, 2004
As we know, Lisa, the media is pretty effective at doing more harm than good.
11:04 pm on November 8th, 2004
What do you mean, Snatch? I thought the media is fair, balanced, unbiased, accurate, candid and trustworthy.
Do you mean to tell me they aren’t?
11:58 pm on November 8th, 2004
This case just stinks. It feels funky and it bothers me. Nothing profound, just my thoughts.
12:12 am on November 9th, 2004
I agree.
5:40 am on November 9th, 2004
Scott Peterson is nobody’s fool. He has been cheating on his wife and lying to the women he was cheating with for a long time.
He was caught with over $10,000 in cash and his brother’s id with dyed blonde hair and a goatee. He had traded his wife’s vehicle for another and tried to sell his house.
The tarp that her body was probably wrapped in and the boat cover that it was probably hidden in was laid underneath a leafblower that was leaking gasoline. Gasoline destroys biological evidence such as blood.
I would convict the sonovobitch without hesitation.
6:29 am on November 9th, 2004
O.J. did it.
8:16 am on November 9th, 2004
Hang him tomorrow at noon.
8:18 am on November 9th, 2004
Oh and as for the media picking and choosing their cases, I don’t see 23 posts on any other murder trial this week, so we are every bit as guilty as the press.
8:22 am on November 9th, 2004
Except if the press would report on all the other murder cases, I could comment on those too. OR if they didn’t report on this one - I wouldn’t have a thing to say - - unless I went through and investigated them all, myself.
Hey, I could turn this into a murder blog.
8:26 am on November 9th, 2004
I still say hang him. and if we’re wrong? so what?
8:30 am on November 9th, 2004
I think if it’s not going to be a hung jury - then they’ll have to go with a second degree murder charge. There just isn’t enough solid evidence to sentence him to a death penalty.
I have yet to ever be called for jury duty, so having never sat on a jury - it’s all so easy for me judge. lol
8:32 am on November 9th, 2004
whats so tough? he’s a slime ball, hang him
8:37 am on November 9th, 2004
If ’slimeball’ were enough to convict him - the jury would have come back with a verdict within seconds.
8:44 am on November 9th, 2004
enough for me
9:03 am on November 9th, 2004
I heard it was a particularly well hung jury.
sorry, couldn’t resist.
9:08 am on November 9th, 2004
Preston, you have a dirty mind.
It’s true.
11:47 am on November 9th, 2004
I heard on the news this morning that there are apparently two parts of the jury. There’s the side that thinks he’s guilty and then there’s the idiots.
1:18 pm on November 9th, 2004
Apparently, I forgot one key reason for a mistrial: juror misconduct. It looks like your prediction is gong to be right, Lisa.
Dear GOD. Another trial. Eeesh.
1:20 pm on November 9th, 2004
If he is considered a flight risk - will they hold him until it’s retried?
1:30 pm on November 9th, 2004
Excellent question. And one I do not have an answer for. Considering the totality of what is going on and IF there IS a mistrial, I smell plea bargain.
[Again, non-professional opinion here. I'm not even watching CourtTV today. LOL]
2:10 pm on November 9th, 2004
Agreed. I can’t see sentencing a man to death or life in prison on the basis of what they have.
In all truth, I think he did kill her. I think she knew about his affairs and then tolerated it up to a point, at which time she told him - hey, it’s your babes on the side or it’s me. Peterson obviously obsesses over appearances; look at the way he’s lied consistently to everyone - the media, the police, Laci’s family, even his own mother and father. Laci threatened the image he had created for himself. Enraged, he murdered her.
But that’s just a convincing theory. Not enough for a conviction. And the jury must acquit if there is reasonable doubt. Seems like there’s enough reasonable doubt to fill an Olympic swimming pool.
3:01 pm on November 9th, 2004
It’s amazing that I have not kept up with this case what with the way it has been all over the news.
I do know that if I were part of a jury that convicted an innocent man, even if he is a cad, I would feel terrible. The “burden” of proof would have to be met.
6:57 pm on November 9th, 2004
Does anyone actually doubt he is guilty, I mean why else would he change his apearance and make ready to flee the country. Honestly lets just hang him and get on with life.
2:20 pm on November 12th, 2004
Come on no one would convict a man to death in 8 days with all the jury problems. What A shame for Laci’s parents that Scott was charged with no real evidence to convict.This trial is a joke and I think the jury is sending a message to the court by coming in quickly with a verdict-you still need evidence to convict a man to death and being a cheater is notit
10:48 pm on November 12th, 2004
Oh puh-lease he is as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.
Hang him high
6:33 am on November 13th, 2004
Red that was so funny I’m about to die…:lol: But the ‘hang him high’ stuff reminds me of a lynching.