Reading between the lines of the media spin, it appears that the bulk of the Jury was ready for the vote early-on. However, it seems that the Jury foreman was resisting the vote in lieu of pouring over his copious notes. Apparently, the Jury revolted over the endless examination of the Forman?s notes and complained, etc. Having been on our County Grand Jury for over a year, I know that in this State there is no set procedure for Jury deliberations aside from the Judge?s instructions and State legal requirements. As a former Grand Jury Foreman I found the most useful tool was to vote often and use that as the catalyst to wash up disagreement, review evidence and discuss relevant points of contention or testimony. I have no idea what the deliberation procedures are in California but it sounds to me like the Foreman was being super cautious; perhaps to a fault, but in a capital murder case maybe that?s the right thing to do, I don?t know.

A relevant point in this Jury flail is that they were ready to vote fairly early and that is a direct indication that either the Prosecution or Defense had made its case. In a case where the evidence is virtually all circumstantial I would think it would be very difficult to get an early Jury vote, very difficult. I would presume the Jury alternates were in the deliberation room but had no vote, if so, they were up to speed. If not, then there may be a basis for a Jury challenge at the appeals level, just guessing. No doubt it?s going to get messy but if justice is served, then so be it.
Ya, in my opinion Peterson is probably guilty. The fishy fish saga plus the intense melodramatic Amber horn polishing thing, plus all that undying love deal gives me an itch where I can?t scratch. Stupid, selfish, vicious, hotter than a pepper sprout, horn dog boy comes to mind, but we?ll see what the legal system churns out.

Scamp

Peterson is almost certainly guilty, but I don't believe justice was served.

I gotta get in the boat with Ron on this one.

I think the system failed.

Our judicial system, even when operating at its highest accuracy, is not perfect. From time to time an innocent person is going to go to prison or be executed.

The founding fathers knew this, and to keep this possibility at a bare minimum decided to try to err on the side of the innocent.

Their philosophy was that it is better for a guilty man to go free than for an innocent man to be convicted.

I don't see that philosophy today. Circumstantial evidence and over-zealous prosecutors are not a good mix for innocent people.

After comparative DNA was found to be so accurate, look at all the people it released from prison who were convicted for crimes they didnt commit.

How do you compensate somebody for taking twenty years of his life away?

Maybe we should change the system so that when a person serving time is found innocent, the prosecution team that sent him to prison takes his place.

Having a background in law, It sounds like the original foreperson on the jury was being very cautious. He obviously knew he was working with circumstantial evidence. Knowing this, he was making sure he knew all the facts. Probably the reason the other "hang 'em" jurrors felt he needed to go.

I suspect they let OJ walk and they weren't going to let this guy walk too. The guys a dirt bag and yet I don't think he'll admit to anything - ever. Circumstantial yes - guilty yes - but the actual evidence is pointing at him no one else? His lack of compassion when his wife went missing really makes him look bad. His ongoing relations with his new squeeze during this time was really cold blooded and his blank expressions and his unwillingness to put his house up as a reward also makes me a little leery.

He's guilty as sin and I think they jury did its job. I don't think he'll get the needle but don't think he will be walking the streets anytime soon - if ever again. Plenty of time to reflect and who knows maybe he'll get another trial.

If your gut tells you something is helter skelter than you are normally correct. He's a cold person and have very little heart not to express grief at the loss of his wife or his first to be born son, which to me would've pushed my over the edge. No anger no emotions something is really wrong.

If I didn't do something and yet they were going to make me the fall guy I would be explosive and angry and upset about the whole thing. He's got no emotions - scary.

That?s right Boats, one cold, heartless MF, period. I think people can understand crimes of passion or emotional circumstance but this crime is completely devoid of passion or emotional circumstance. But rather, the cold, calculating, vicious, selfishness goes beyond usual rational human understanding. Maybe that?s why this case has gotten so much media attention and public curiosity. Yikes, talk about a journey to the dark side of the human condition. I wonder which side of Peterson will emerge when the slammer door goes slam for keeps.

Scamp

If he was guilty and convicted then justice was served.
 

["Peterson is almost certainly guilty, but I don't believe justice was served." Rigger]

Haven't you contradicted yourself Steve?



If he was guilty then justice was served. I don't think we should be so harsh on the jury. We didn't sit through hours and hours of evidence. An accumulation of evidence even circumstantial can result in a guilty verdict. I have always believed the "smoking gun" was that by paying the parking fee at the dock he placed himself on the scene. Also, (if my memory serves me correctly) his was the only parking slip turned in on Christmas Eve. That to me is extremely hard evidence. That I believe is what got him plus all those conversations with Amber Fry, and his on going affair with Amber before and after his wife's disappearance.

If he was guilty and the jury convicted Him, then indeed justice was served.

Keith

Keith,

I agree - he got a much better trial than most of us would have gotten and he got the best lawyers - so his piers found him guilty so I'm not second guessing them . Nor do I have any pity for this guy.

Your right - we didn't have all the facts and I'm sure that he got a better trial than he really deserved. Justice has been served but what cost to the loss of a woman and her unborn child. This trial cried out for justice for their sake.

To connect HC's thread, "Beyond a reasonable doubt" this one.

Reasonable Doubt; "The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence or lack of evidence in a case."

"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty."

Was it???

circumstantial evidence

NOUN: Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might INFER the occurrence of the fact in dispute.

Does "circumstantial" = "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

There seems to be a fine line between the guilty conviction based upon reasonable doubt and that of circumstantian evidence in this case. Though the evidence points to Peterson being guilty, there doesn't appear to be any solid evidence to show he actually killed Laci and the unborn son. The jury seemed to have an opinion prior to the deliberations and did what they had to toreach a guilty verdict. If all the jurors can live with the conviction for the rest of their lives, good for them. In my mind I believe he's guilty, but on the other side of the fine line, I would question my own justice if I were the one to hand the guilty verdict down.