The Scott Peterson trial

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:11 am

The trial is now over and in the hands of the jury. Like the Borden case the evidence is almost purely circumstantial.

Any opinions on whether he will be convicted?

Audrey · Post by **Audrey** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:16 am

Yes.... I think the judge all but saw to that with his charge to the jury and the option to convict on 2nd degree murder.

Mark A. · Post by **Mark A.** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:55 pm

Yes, your right Audrey. Isn't it funny how the judge throws out these suttle hints on how to decide the verdict. I wonder if that was the case with Ms. Lizzie?

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:43 pm

Good question, Mark. I need to read the charge again...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:31 am

I just saw, on Court TV, that you can enroll to have the verdict e-mailed to your cell phone!

Wordweaver · Post by **Wordweaver** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 5:25 am

I don't know -- it's been a long and messy trial, and the cops made many mistakes. On the other hand, I strongly suspect that he did it.

I live not so far away from it, so I have a somewhat skewed view. I'll be glad when Middlefield Rd. reopens in Redwood City; right now it's blocked by satellite-equipped news trucks. A friend of mine and her husband are with the NBC truck -- she's a sound tech, he's a cameraman. They will also be very glad to have it end. They've been there for months.

Lynn

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:14 pm

I think they have a very dynamic jury, and at least a 2nd degree murder charge. The phone calls between he and Amber are telling. In one call, he tells her she has guessed right to the answers to her questions. Those questions were she thought he had something to do with the murders. Plus the disguise and the money to get away.......I was on the fence at the beginning of the trial, but he is such a liar (and a cheat!) that I believe he will be found guilty.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:36 pm

Several things regarding the jury:

One of the members of the jury is a doctor/lawyer. I don't think he's currently practicing law but he has a law degree. I didn't think lawyers were allowed to serve on juries. Apparently so.

Second, the jury was allowed to try an experiment with the boat that Scott Peterson allegedly used. The jurors in the Borden trial, when taken on their view of the murder scene, were not even allowed to ask a question. These are the instructions given to them (Trial p97):

"MASON, C. J. - I desire to say to the jury a single word. This view is not at all for the purpose of receiving any testimony at the view. You are only to observe the physical objects that shall be called to your attention. Counsel will not be at liberty to address you in any other way than to call your attention to the objects which you are desired to observe. It will not be proper for you to ask questions of counsel with reference to anything that is seen. The testimony with reference to all that you see will be given here upon the stand; and you are to keep together. All of you are to see everything that any of you see. You are not to separate at all to make independent observations individually, but you as a jury are to see all that is called to your attention. You will observe the strict oath which the officers have taken, and you will be exceedingly careful that no others address than those that the officers have permission to allow to address you; and when the view is completed you will return to the officers, and come into court at 9 o'clock to-morrow morning. The officers now will suffer the jury to obtain luncheon before leaving upon the train."

I hope they didn't "suffer" too much with their luncheon.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 6:23 pm

Sitting here trying to imagine any one of the Borden jurors with fuscia-colored hair. It's not a pretty picture!!

(Juror #7 in Peterson was bounced a bit ago, apparently for improper conduct; the rumor is that it involved some sort of investigation on the part of the former juror.)

The alternate/replacement is the gal with the fuscia hair.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 6:34 pm

doug65oh said:

Sitting here trying to imagine any one of the Borden jurors with fuscia-colored hair. It's not a pretty picture!!

Is she the new one that has the nine tattoos?

The Borden jury had no alternates so I guess they simply would have went with less jurors if something happened and a juror had to be removed.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:03 pm

Yep, that's her, Harry.

Nine tattoos, four kids...middle thirties in age.

That's an interesting thought about the Borden jury tho. It would depend I should think on whether or not the statutes in force at the time mandated .. hmm... It's a shame we don't have a court rules reference from 1893 that might tell us.

Somewhere I've seen within the past week - actually I think there might be a way to find out (altho it's hit or miss to be sure) from the Supreme Judicial Court - their law library. (If anyone might know, it should be them.)

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:22 pm

In the Borden case the Chief Justice examined the potential jurors.
Lizzie had to challenge personally, in her own voice.

Wasn't a juror in the Peterson trial replaced just today?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:26 pm

In the OJ trial, when the jurors viewed Nicole's condo, it was stripped bare. When they visited Rockingham, OJ's home, it was set like a stage. Apparently a couple of changes were ordered by the judge:
The lit fireplaces were ordered put out and the framed photo of OJ with his mother was ordered removed from his nightstand.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:56 pm

Yep... #7 was dismissed this afternoon.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 1:49 pm

Unbelieveable!! Juror #5 (the MD/JD foreperson) was just tossed off the jury a bit ago.....

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 11:19 pm

I did think there were 2 jurors gone by now.
I didn't see into the future or anything, so maybe my time clock doesn't match youse guys?

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 11:26 pm

Nope, it really did happen twice!!

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:48 pm

Well, today's the day. The Redwood City jury has reached a verdict. It should be announced at 4 pm., EST...