Interesting questions about the Peterson case?

[pagemaster]

I am new to the board so please excuse me if I do anything wrong.

While I do believe that Scott Peterson is guilty I do have some questions about the case now that I have been able to listen to the jurors and now that I have some time to reflect upon things.

These are questions that I have about all of this.

1. I don't know what the California law states, but if you are charged for 1st degree murder with two counts is a judge allowed to change the jurors options to consider 2nd degree murder after the trial has started.

The reason that I ask this is because I am under the impression that Scott Peterson pleaded not guilty to two counts of first degree murder.

Wouldn't Peterson have had to plead not guilty to second degree murder as well?

2. After watching some of the jurors talk on television. I now have some issues about their verdicts.

I was watching Larry King Live tonight and King asked one of the juror to speculate when Laci was killed.
The juror responded with "we KNOW she was murdered" but the cause of the murder was unknown. I thought it has been established that nobody can actually determine if she was IN FACT murdered because that FACT is underterimined. Anybody else see what I am saying?

3.

The jurors keep talking about how they were watching Peterson on the bench all this time and how he showed know emotion. What I got from the interviews is that they used this "lack of emotion" on the bench in the courtroom.

The jurors were also asked whether they wanted to hear from Peterson himself. Aren't the jurors not allowed to consider his lack of emotion because whatever he does in the courtroom is not part of the evidence?


4. I don't understand how the judge can sequester the jurors for only the deliberations and not the whole trial.
That is just weird.

Finally, one of the jurors kept talking about how he showed no emotion next to Garagos. Aren't jurors not supposed to consider these things.




The jurors kept insisting that his lack of testimony had no influence of the verdict but I just get this impression that they were for somereason influenced in making their decision.



Don't get me wrong. I think Peterson did it and I also thing the verdict was correct. BUT something just tells me that something was not right about some of the things in the case.


What does anyone else think?





Tom from Canada

[deathrowpenpal]

pagemaster said:

The jurors keep talking about how they were watching Peterson on the bench all this time and how he showed know emotion. What I got from the interviews is that they used this "lack of emotion" on the bench in the courtroom.

Okay this is something that really gets to me. I just saw a documentary on a man who was released from Texas Death Row after serving 17 years for arson which has now been proven HE DIDN'T DO. One of the things the jurors quoted the district attorney as saying was to look into the face of this man who showed no emotion or remorse for what he had done. What the jury wasn't told was that this man was given the psych med Thorazine while in jail. Anyone who is familiar with this medication knows its no wonder he showed no signs of emotion. I would be willing to bet with the stress that Scott was under he was also given something to calm his nerves. This could definitely explain his calm and unemotional response in the courtroom.

[Donnie]

DeathRowPenPal said:

I just saw a documentary on a man who was released from Texas Death Row after serving 17 years for arson which has now been proven HE DIDN'T DO.

When watching a "documentary" it is quite important to remain highly skeptical of what is presented. That is because there are almost no true documentaries. The shows presented as documentaries are generally shows that are crafted to cause the audience to agree with the maker of the film. Thus it is normal for false information to be presented as fact, biased interpretations of facts presented as unbiased and true information to be presented out of context or in a misleading context. Generally people who are released from death row are, in fact, guilty of the murder for which they were originally convicted. However, in a case where someone was in prison for 17 years it would be unlikely to retry the case since there would be a good chance that if the murderer were convicted again, his sentence would be about what he had already served. So such a trial would be pointless.

[Donnie]

pagemaster said:

1. I don't know what the California law states, but if you are charged for 1st degree murder with two counts is a judge allowed to change the jurors options to consider 2nd degree murder after the trial has started.

The reason that I ask this is because I am under the impression that Scott Peterson pleaded not guilty to two counts of first degree murder.

Wouldn't Peterson have had to plead not guilty to second degree murder as well?

He would also be allowed to choose to plead not guilty to 2nd degree murder, unless the law automatically assumes a plea of not guilty for the alternate offense. The bottom line here is that the alternate offense has no effect on the murderer's plea.

2. After watching some of the jurors talk on television. I now have some issues about their verdicts.

I was watching Larry King Live tonight and King asked one of the juror to speculate when Laci was killed.
The juror responded with "we KNOW she was murdered" but the cause of the murder was unknown. I thought it has been established that nobody can actually determine if she was IN FACT murdered because that FACT is underterimined. Anybody else see what I am saying?

It is every juror's duty to decide whether or not they KNOW if the murderer did the murder. They not only have to know, they have to know "beyond a reasonable doubt". In some states, if a murderer can conceal the actual cause of death, they cannot be convicted of murder. Fortunately, the state of California is a little bit more interested in justice than in cosmetics in this particular aspect. Of course they generally side with the murderer and against the victim in most other aspects of the trial.

[/quote]. The jurors keep talking about how they were watching Peterson on the bench all this time and how he showed know emotion. What I got from the interviews is that they used this "lack of emotion" on the bench in the courtroom.

The jurors were also asked whether they wanted to hear from Peterson himself. Aren't the jurors not allowed to consider his lack of emotion because whatever he does in the courtroom is not part of the evidence?[/quote] The jurors have a duty to observe the behaviour and demeanor of all witnesses, as well as the murderer. That is certainly part of the evidence that exists and is part of the reason for having a jury in the first place.

4. I don't understand how the judge can sequester the jurors for only the deliberations and not the whole trial.

Sequestering a jury is actually punishment for the jury. They are all punished for not murdering and for doing their civic duty. The whole concept of sequestering a jury is just another advantage that judges and lawyers have chosen to give to criminals because they are all trained to be on the side of the criminals.

The jurors kept insisting that his lack of testimony had no influence of the verdict but I just get this impression that they were for some reason influenced in making their decision.

This is just the jurors attempting to behave contrary to the natural behavior of human beings in order to maintain the legal fiction that adds another layer of protection for murderers and other criminals. It is quite unlikely that most jurors can keep guilty behavior from influencing their verdict. However, they must try and behave irrataionally at the behest of the legal system. To whatever degree they succeed, their success further tips the balance in favor of murderers and other criminals.

BUT something just tells me that something was not right about some of the things in the case.

The most important thing that was wrong in this case was that Peterson murdered his wife and unborn child.

[Benty]

With regard to your question about SP not showing any emotion. In many cases, the defendant is instructed by his/her defense counsel not to show emothion as it can be interperted differently by different jurors.
I believe he is such a self-indulgent little *deleted* that he was annoyed by the whole process and believed that his parents money could buy him a top notch attorney and get him off.
As a strong proponent of the DP, and I believe SP is a poster boy for the DP, that if he got LWOP and put into the general population, he would die faster than if he gets the DP.