[Seascamp]

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