The jury foreman deliberating in the Scott Peterson double murder case has been dismissed
- Thread starter conjur
- Start date
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
Huh. IIRC he is a doctor and attorney, and one wonders whether he, like the other dismissed juror, was researching on his own.
As a California taxpayer I'd just as soon Peterson is acquitted. The prosecution clearly hasn't got the firepower it needs, and if they end up with a hung jury, the public pressure to retry him will be strong. FWIW I tend to think he's guilty, but the available evidence is nowhere close to proof beyond a reasonable doubt IMO.
As a California taxpayer I'd just as soon Peterson is acquitted. The prosecution clearly hasn't got the firepower it needs, and if they end up with a hung jury, the public pressure to retry him will be strong. FWIW I tend to think he's guilty, but the available evidence is nowhere close to proof beyond a reasonable doubt IMO.
He's the white OJ, and he didn't even have to play the race card.
I think he probably did do it, but too bad the prosecuter screwed up big time.
I think he probably did do it, but too bad the prosecuter screwed up big time.
"The juror was replaced by an alternate whose son-in-law now owns a restaurant that Scott and Laci Peterson themselves once owned. "
:Q
<cue Twilight Zone theme>
:Q
<cue Twilight Zone theme>
I hope that bastard gets hung by his balls.
However, all these changes to the jury will only lead to appeal after appeal if he is convicted.
However, all these changes to the jury will only lead to appeal after appeal if he is convicted.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Dan Abrams:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is at its heart a fairly simple case, a long case, but in the end, a simple one. The evidence you?ve heard for the past five months demonstrates that one of two things happened to a beautiful, vibrant, pregnant woman named Laci Peterson on or around December 24, 2002.
Either, as the defense has suggested, some homeless transient, unidentified, Polynesian-looking individuals, or local burglars abducted Laci in or near Modesto Park for her jewelry or for her baby in the 10 to 20 minutes after Scott Peterson left their home. And then rather than leaving her, took her to some undisclosed location until Scott Peterson announced where he?d been that day. Then the killer or killers went 90 miles to the San Francisco Bay to the exact spot where Scott Peterson said he?d been fishing and dumped the body in an effort to frame Peterson. But rather than placing the body in the water so that Peterson would be immediately blamed, weighed the body down with anchors, leaving her decomposed remains and those of her son Conner to only wash up accidentally months later.
The other possibility? She was killed by her philandering husband who had forecasted her death about two weeks before she disappeared, and who had admitted he had gone fishing in the exact location where the body of Laci and her son washed up months later-nowhere near their Modesto home.
Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that the most important piece of evidence in this case-pieces of evidence in this case-are not even in dispute.
First, however you want to characterize it, Scott Peterson began an extramarital relationship with Amber Frey in November of 2002. He told her he?d be able to spend more time with her in January, not in dispute. On December 6, Amber?s friend, Shawn Sibley, confronted him about being married. He told her he had lost his wife, but that he wanted to tell Amber himself, not in dispute.
The next day, December 7, he began looking to buy a boat on the Internet. December 8, he searched for information on the tides in the San Francisco Bay, the precise area Laci?s body was eventually found. December 9, he tearfully told Amber he had lost his wife. Two weeks later, that prediction became reality. His wife was lost.
It?s also not in dispute that the day Laci went missing, Scott Peterson claims he was fishing nearly two hours away from their home on Christmas Eve and yet he told different stories to different people about his whereabouts. Why? He told two neighbors and one of Laci?s family members that he went golfing, not fishing that day. Other witnesses testified he didn?t seem certain what he was fishing for.
It?s also not in dispute that he said Laci was wearing black pants and a white shirt when he left the house. The problem? Her body was found with tan pants, meaning if the defense?s theory is true, in the minutes after Scott Peterson left the house, his seven and a half months pregnant wife dropped her mop that he said she was using when he left, raced to change her clothes, and was immediately abducted. Think about it. How long does it take a woman that pregnant to just put her shoes on?
And speaking of shoes, why aren?t any of her shoes missing if she was out for a walk?
It?s not in dispute that Scott Peterson returned to the marina where the bodies had not yet been found at least three times, sometimes in a rented car, and that he repeatedly lied, even to his own family members, to cover up the fact that he was there. He also lied about various other issues, to the police, Laci's family, and the media in the weeks after her disappearance. Ladies and gentlemen, why would an innocent man tell so many lies if, in his words "these are critical days." How could those lies help find Laci? And while there?s no standard for how an innocent husband would or should act, it?s not in dispute that in the weeks after she went missing, he sold Laci's car, tried to sell their house, and just a week afterwards, called Amber from Laci's vigil. You heard him telling Amber he wanted to create a life with her, take care of her daughter, that he didn?t want to have more children.
It?s not in dispute that he was arrested 30 miles from the Mexican border. The defense says he was going to play golf. Of course, he didn?t have any clubs or shoes, and yet his car was stuffed with other gear, survival gear, $15,000 cash, and some Mexican currency.
Then there?s the physical evidence. The defense has offered a lot of theoretical possibilities about why Laci's hair could have been found wrapped on pliers in Scott?s new boat. About why 80 pounds or so of cement might have been used for something other than anchors to weigh down Laci's body.
About why these pictures depict something other than five spots where the anchors were made?and why tracking dogs who tracked her scent from their home to the marina were wrong. Ask yourself-could Scott Peterson be so unlucky so many times that so much incriminating evidence is actually something else?
Please, don?t lose focus of the big picture here. There are possible innocent explanations for some of the evidence, and you will hear them from the defense. But not for all of the evidence taken together, taken as a whole.
There is no other reasonable explanation for what happened to Laci Peterson. We?ve proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott Peterson killed Laci and ask you to find him guilty of first-degree murder in the death of his wife and their unborn child.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is at its heart a fairly simple case, a long case, but in the end, a simple one. The evidence you?ve heard for the past five months demonstrates that one of two things happened to a beautiful, vibrant, pregnant woman named Laci Peterson on or around December 24, 2002.
Either, as the defense has suggested, some homeless transient, unidentified, Polynesian-looking individuals, or local burglars abducted Laci in or near Modesto Park for her jewelry or for her baby in the 10 to 20 minutes after Scott Peterson left their home. And then rather than leaving her, took her to some undisclosed location until Scott Peterson announced where he?d been that day. Then the killer or killers went 90 miles to the San Francisco Bay to the exact spot where Scott Peterson said he?d been fishing and dumped the body in an effort to frame Peterson. But rather than placing the body in the water so that Peterson would be immediately blamed, weighed the body down with anchors, leaving her decomposed remains and those of her son Conner to only wash up accidentally months later.
The other possibility? She was killed by her philandering husband who had forecasted her death about two weeks before she disappeared, and who had admitted he had gone fishing in the exact location where the body of Laci and her son washed up months later-nowhere near their Modesto home.
Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you that the most important piece of evidence in this case-pieces of evidence in this case-are not even in dispute.
First, however you want to characterize it, Scott Peterson began an extramarital relationship with Amber Frey in November of 2002. He told her he?d be able to spend more time with her in January, not in dispute. On December 6, Amber?s friend, Shawn Sibley, confronted him about being married. He told her he had lost his wife, but that he wanted to tell Amber himself, not in dispute.
The next day, December 7, he began looking to buy a boat on the Internet. December 8, he searched for information on the tides in the San Francisco Bay, the precise area Laci?s body was eventually found. December 9, he tearfully told Amber he had lost his wife. Two weeks later, that prediction became reality. His wife was lost.
It?s also not in dispute that the day Laci went missing, Scott Peterson claims he was fishing nearly two hours away from their home on Christmas Eve and yet he told different stories to different people about his whereabouts. Why? He told two neighbors and one of Laci?s family members that he went golfing, not fishing that day. Other witnesses testified he didn?t seem certain what he was fishing for.
It?s also not in dispute that he said Laci was wearing black pants and a white shirt when he left the house. The problem? Her body was found with tan pants, meaning if the defense?s theory is true, in the minutes after Scott Peterson left the house, his seven and a half months pregnant wife dropped her mop that he said she was using when he left, raced to change her clothes, and was immediately abducted. Think about it. How long does it take a woman that pregnant to just put her shoes on?
And speaking of shoes, why aren?t any of her shoes missing if she was out for a walk?
It?s not in dispute that Scott Peterson returned to the marina where the bodies had not yet been found at least three times, sometimes in a rented car, and that he repeatedly lied, even to his own family members, to cover up the fact that he was there. He also lied about various other issues, to the police, Laci's family, and the media in the weeks after her disappearance. Ladies and gentlemen, why would an innocent man tell so many lies if, in his words "these are critical days." How could those lies help find Laci? And while there?s no standard for how an innocent husband would or should act, it?s not in dispute that in the weeks after she went missing, he sold Laci's car, tried to sell their house, and just a week afterwards, called Amber from Laci's vigil. You heard him telling Amber he wanted to create a life with her, take care of her daughter, that he didn?t want to have more children.
It?s not in dispute that he was arrested 30 miles from the Mexican border. The defense says he was going to play golf. Of course, he didn?t have any clubs or shoes, and yet his car was stuffed with other gear, survival gear, $15,000 cash, and some Mexican currency.
Then there?s the physical evidence. The defense has offered a lot of theoretical possibilities about why Laci's hair could have been found wrapped on pliers in Scott?s new boat. About why 80 pounds or so of cement might have been used for something other than anchors to weigh down Laci's body.
About why these pictures depict something other than five spots where the anchors were made?and why tracking dogs who tracked her scent from their home to the marina were wrong. Ask yourself-could Scott Peterson be so unlucky so many times that so much incriminating evidence is actually something else?
Please, don?t lose focus of the big picture here. There are possible innocent explanations for some of the evidence, and you will hear them from the defense. But not for all of the evidence taken together, taken as a whole.
There is no other reasonable explanation for what happened to Laci Peterson. We?ve proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott Peterson killed Laci and ask you to find him guilty of first-degree murder in the death of his wife and their unborn child.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter