Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is it because the verdict was delivered after she was added to the jury that you believe the trial was unfair? That would imply that one person, rather than twelve, made the decision. Isn't that a bit unrealistic - that eleven people had no opinion after six months of trial information?
I believe that part of the trial was grossly unfair because the judge didn't allow the jury to hang.
That was a hung jury.
And instead, they made them deliberate and deliberate and deliberate until the one holdout was threatened and made to feel afraid, and he backed out and begged to be released.
You don't replace a dissenting juror if the jury is hung. You declare a mistrial.
1. The burglary occurred sometime between 10:30 a.m. on December 24 and 7:00 a.m. December 26.
2. Diane Jackson witnessed a van and three dark skinned men, not African American, in front of the Medina house on December 24 at 11:40 a.m.
3. Diane Jackson phoned in a tip to the tip line – the tip sheet showed that she reported the above and in addition, “a safe being removed from the house.” The tip was coded a “459” or burglary.
4. Steven Todd confessed to the burglary and a safe was recovered as part of the stolen property.
Here's an interesting fact, the witness to the burglary did call it in, same day, she wasn't making a name for herself.?
Also the mailman who knows dogs and has better time stamps than Servas said Mackenzie did not bark at him that day, said Mackenzie always barks at him, the mailman was there after Servas.
1. The burglary occurred sometime between 10:30 a.m. on December 24 and 7:00 a.m. December 26.
2. Diane Jackson witnessed a van and three dark skinned men, not African American, in front of the Medina house on December 24 at 11:40 a.m.
3. Diane Jackson phoned in a tip to the tip line – the tip sheet showed that she reported the above and in addition, “a safe being removed from the house.” The tip was coded a “459” or burglary.
4. Steven Todd confessed to the burglary and a safe was recovered as part of the stolen property.
Here's an interesting fact, the witness to the burglary did call it in, same day, she wasn't making a name for herself.?
Also the mailman who knows dogs and has better time stamps than Servas said Mackenzie did not bark at him that day, said Mackenzie always barks at him, the mailman was there after Servas.
So other burglars showed up on the 26th? And they took the safe, lol. Sorry? I don't believe that. The police crapped the bed on the burglary because they believed the burglars.
The burglar to cops tells them " I had nothing to go with that pregnant girl" He knew she was pregnant. The jury had never heard any of this because the police said the robbery happened on the 26th.
1. The burglary occurred sometime between 10:30 a.m. on December 24 and 7:00 a.m. December 26.
2. Diane Jackson witnessed a van and three dark skinned men, not African American, in front of the Medina house on December 24 at 11:40 a.m.
3. Diane Jackson phoned in a tip to the tip line – the tip sheet showed that she reported the above and in addition, “a safe being removed from the house.” The tip was coded a “459” or burglary.
4. Steven Todd confessed to the burglary and a safe was recovered as part of the stolen property.
Here's an interesting fact, the witness to the burglary did call it in, same day, she wasn't making a name for herself.?
Also the mailman who knows dogs and has better time stamps than Servas said Mackenzie did not bark at him that day, said Mackenzie always barks at him, the mailman was there after Servas.
So other burglars showed up on the 26th? And they took the safe, lol. Sorry? I don't believe that. The police crapped the bed on the burglary because they believed the burglars.
The burglar to cops tells them " I had nothing to go with that pregnant girl" He knew she was pregnant. The jury had never heard any of this because the police said the robbery happened on the 26th.
If one of those witnesses actually saw Laci after 10:30, Scott didn't do it. No matter what color pants she had on. We need to do better then pants color.
1. The burglary occurred sometime between 10:30 a.m. on December 24 and 7:00 a.m. December 26.
2. Diane Jackson witnessed a van and three dark skinned men, not African American, in front of the Medina house on December 24 at 11:40 a.m.
3. Diane Jackson phoned in a tip to the tip line – the tip sheet showed that she reported the above and in addition, “a safe being removed from the house.” The tip was coded a “459” or burglary.
4. Steven Todd confessed to the burglary and a safe was recovered as part of the stolen property.
Here's an interesting fact, the witness to the burglary did call it in, same day, she wasn't making a name for herself.?
Also the mailman who knows dogs and has better time stamps than Servas said Mackenzie did not bark at him that day, said Mackenzie always barks at him, the mailman was there after Servas.
So other burglars showed up on the 26th? And they took the safe, lol. Sorry? I don't believe that. The police crapped the bed on the burglary because they believed the burglars.
The burglar to cops tells them " I had nothing to go with that pregnant girl" He knew she was pregnant. The jury had never heard any of this because the police said the robbery happened on the 26th.
Had the jury known a burglary happened the same day, around the same time as her disappearance , would that have put resonance doubt in anyone's mind??
I believe that part of the trial was grossly unfair because the judge didn't allow the jury to hang.
That was a hung jury.
And instead, they made them deliberate and deliberate and deliberate until the one holdout was threatened and made to feel afraid, and he backed out and begged to be released.
You don't replace a dissenting juror if the jury is hung. You declare a mistrial.
Well, let me go back and research a little and refresh. The jury foreman is who I'm remembering, who believed in innocence and was removed after (sorry if I'm remembering wrong) days of deliberating and declaring they were hung and the judge wouldn't accept it and insisted they go back to deliberating.
Anyway, back in a second.
Edited to add:
Yes. It was the foreman, who after days of deliberation kept asking to be let out of duty, because of the hostility toward him being the lone hold out for not guilty.
Instead of releasing the foreman, the judge should have declared the jury hung and a mistrial should have been declared.
You don't remove and replace a juror who is a hold out against the majority. That's the beauty of requiring a unanimous verdict. If you don't have a unanimous opinion, the defendant can't be found guilty. You don't just pluck the ones out who don't agree and backfill with alternates until you can find a unanimous grouping of 12 persons.
And worse, you don't replace the one hold out with a juror who you later discover lied about her previous life experience in order to get on the jury and convict Peterson of a crime similar to one she was a victim of, and lied about it to get on the jury. Geez.
Well, let me go back and research a little and refresh. The jury foreman is who I'm remembering, who believed in innocence and was removed after (sorry if I'm remembering wrong) days of deliberating and declaring they were hung and the judge wouldn't accept it and insisted they go back to deliberating.
Anyway, back in a second.
Edited to add:
Yes. It was the foreman, who after days of deliberation kept asking to be let out of duty, because of the hostility toward him being the lone hold out for not guilty.
Instead of releasing the foreman, the judge should have declared the jury hung and a mistrial should have been declared.
You don't remove and replace a juror who is a hold out against the majority. That's the beauty of requiring a unanimous verdict. If you don't have a unanimous opinion, the defendant can't be found guilty. You don't just pluck the ones out who don't agree and backfill with alternates until you can find a unanimous grouping of 12 persons.
And worse, you don't replace the one hold out with a juror who you later discover lied about her previous life experience in order to get on the jury and convict Peterson of a crime similar to one she was a victim of, and lied about it to get on the jury. Geez.
His appeal is being reviewed now by the California state Supreme Court, I still don't think he gets it but there are reasons why he probably should. Guilty or not.
It has been proven when it comes to time, Servas is unreliable.
I have to disagree with this statement. Other than a website that someone linked in the thread, I have not seen anything to suggest that Servas's time stamped receipt might be inaccurate. The defense certainly could have looked into this and presented that information at trial. If they could have shown that receipt ot be unreliable I am sure they would have done so, since a lot of the case hinges on the time line. Servas also had phone records that helped establish the time she found McKenzie. Some people might have questions about her timeline, but I don't think it has been proven to be unreliable. I actually think that is the most reliable and documented time frame in this whole scenario.
It would be one thing if he was searching how to get away with murder books, or searched that stuff online, heck kill her on the 22nd and don't tell anyone she's missing till the 24th, cause he didn't give himself much of a window, plus did he ever put the boat in the water before he killed Laci?? If not, the boat sat for a few months and he would have to hope the motor started cause the guy he bought the boat from didn't even start the motor for Scott.
Scott Peterson has huge brass balls, no doubt about that.
According to Scott's family he wanted to test out his boat because he had never had it in the water. Why would he drive 90 miles away from home to test out his boat that he didn't tell anyone that he had. If he had trouble with the boat and got stranded, who was he going to call to come and help him! If the purpose was to test the boat out, it makes a lot more sense to test the boat closer to home.
Scott definitely has huge brass balls as you say. His family called him "The Golden Child", he was catered to his whole life and always got his way about everything. Jackie gave up 2 kids (that I know of) for adoption before she had Scott, I think because of that Jackie spoiled Scott and he got whatever he wanted. He was used to doing whatever he wanted and being able to talk his way out of everything. From sources inside and outside of the family, that is how I perceive the family dynamics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
