It seems the Scott Peterson case will last as long as the war on terror -- for Pete's sake, how many alternate jurors do they have, anyway? Do they have an "alternate jury bullpen" holed up in the L.A. Colisseum, where J.D./M.D.'s await their call, or where brides of murder defendants while away the hours until they're planted in the box?
Perhaps the prosecutors there should have sought a change of venue to central Texas -- East Texas would not have been fair, notwithstanding juror experiments, everybody there knows you can put at least five extra large fishermen into a 14' John boat without any danger of capsizing, and that's not including three Igloo ice chests full of Pearl Light.
I'm just glad that Saddam won't be tried in California. He won't, will he?

I don't think their bullpen is allowed to throw chairs into the gallery anymore. So, it wouldn't be as much fun as we'd all like it to be.

I'm betting it's going to be a not guilty. Chances are reasonable doubt includes a hunch or a scooby-snack intuition in CA.

I'm still voting guilty. He didn't take the stand. In the end, that is very powerful even if the Jury is told that they can't use his silence against him. The problem is that the jury doesn't have any words from him that they can use for him. I'm still stuck on guilty.

And, just another thought, what was that defense? Jinkies! Any guesses on his strategy? I've seen more spirited defenses for traffic tickets!

OK, now the foreman is reported to be out. I haven't heard the exact reason why, but I suppose that he might have given the jury an opinion about reasonable doubt? Who told? Boy, this case sure is interesting! Especially when the Judge chides the jurors to 'not be afraid' to change their opinion for the betterment of a verdict.

Listening to the news on the Peterson trial almost makes me miss the Presidential campaign. I only hope they get a verdict of some sort. I can't take another year of this. . . If he's found not guilty, he can join O.J. on the golf course looking for the real killer.

Good point, Diana -- And, it would make for a
high-quality reality series, one on the scale of survivor-celebrity-moles-fired-by-the-bachelorette, Part III.
Think about it: California Cold Case Squad, with O.J., Scott and little Bobby Blake from the Rascals, leaving no divit unturned as they search for killers and cart-path violators. The amazing, cliff-hanging series finale has Scott finding O.J.'s missing glove in the rough off the #6 fairway and discovering it does fit, after all. And Blake catches Peterson sneaking his fishing license and tackle box into the storage box of the course marshal's golf cart. Bobby and Juror #5 from Scott's trial run off to Bay St. Louis and open a paintball course. Man, I get all giddy, just thinking about it.

These two paragraphs are from a CNN posting of an AP story. You just have to love their definition of 'news'.

While deliberations went on earlier this week, the drama shifted from the courtroom to a parking lot a few blocks away. Defense attorney Mark Geragos had parked a boat the defense had hoped to use to convince jurors that Peterson couldn't have dumped his wife's body overboard into San Francisco Bay without capsizing.

The boat and its contents -- coveralls stuffed with weights and concrete anchors tied to the arms and legs -- quickly became a makeshift shrine, with candles, flowers and hand-lettered signs reading "Rot in Prison" and "Justice for Laci and Conner." Hordes of onlookers gathered around, some even kneeling, praying and weeping before the boat was towed away Wednesday night.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/12/peterson.trial.ap/index.html

It appears according to radio that the Peterson jury has reached a verdict--it suppose to be announce at 1pm California time (or 3pm Central time)

For those who have criticized the defense in the Peterson case--and this is written before the verdict--it may well be that they took a careful look at the jury, and remembered the above adage--and saw no point in damaging their good fortune by putting on much of a case--but who knows for sure until the verdict is announced

Ok, I knew it was guilty. He didn't speak up for himself, that's too powerful.

I knew it would be a guilty once they got rid of that doctor/lawyer/juror/foreman who allegedly wouldn't let the jury vote. How weird was that? And by the way, do they not have PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES in California? It'll be a cold day in you-know-where before someone with an M.D. and J.D. gets anywhere close to being seated on one of my juries.

Yep-Beck is right- -Looks like they should have drilled a little longer- -but you know what they say about digging a deeper hole to bury one's self. It really is a shame as I understand that he was really improving on his golf game before this trial interrupted him-



And just when everyone was about to give up on our justice system.. ..I just wish I could have sent flowers to that lawyer's boat...

[This message was edited by LV on 11-12-04 at .]

OK, I admit to the public at large that I doubted the citizens and the CJ system of the coast to our left. I didn't think they would ever find Scott the fertilizer salesman from Cal Poly guilty, let alone of 1st degree murder. I was...I was...I was mistaken. Sorry.

I am glad that you, me and many others were wrong....

I still think the 55 count blue state is nuts. Just because they get one criminal trial right doesn't excuse all the looney opinions from their US court of appeals.

I'm sure they'll get a chance to rule and find the defendant not guilty by reason of something or other.

I wonder if the boat has a fowarding address? I want to sent it a fruitcake.

I was wrong as well. I figured they would hang up at best. One must remember that they ran through fourteen or fifteen jurors to find twelve. How about the dismissed juror who spent the remainder of his fifteen minutes of fame offering his wisdom to the masses from MSNBC? He was painfully pro-defense until the verdict came in.....and then launched into a paen to the collective wisdom of the jury. Now he can go back to boring his family, friends and coworkers.

Leave aside Amber Frye....dyed hair, a false ID, $10,000 cash and headed for the border? I would like to think a Texas jury would have been quicker in their verdict but we have the little example of the New York millionaire down on the coast to negate that notion. You know, the one who allegedly killed and dismembered his neighbor and dumped him in the bay then walked on a claim of self-defense and panic?

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 11-13-04 at .]

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 11-13-04 at .]

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 11-13-04 at .]

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 11-13-04 at .]

Beck was right, I was wrong. The verdict really surprised me and gives me some encouragement that things are not as bad as I thought out there. Anybody's thoughts on chances of successful appeal?

According to a radio news guy I was listening to, Scott should have a good chance at a reversal because the jury returned a verdict too darn quick, after having been instructed to start deliberations from scratch.

Apparently the judge had kicked off a juror, and installed a new juror, and then told the jury to start deliberations all over again. A short while later they returned with a guilty verdict. "I think he's as guilty as sin," the news jockey said, "but they didn't deliberate long enough to have started from scratch. That just isn't right. I bet you that his attorneys have already written that appeal," he said. He expressed complete confidence that Peterson would get a reversal based on the speed of the jury's verdict.

I always thought that when a jury returns a verdict of guilty after deliberating for 10 minutes, that things were going my way. Shows how little I know compared to the experts they get on tv and the radio.

I always thought the swiftness of the verdict reflected the certainty of the jury.