Posted on 11/08/2004 1:27:16 PM PST by Red Badger
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (AP) - In a sign of possible discord in the jury room, the judge in Scott Peterson's murder case lectured the panel Monday about the importance of deliberating with an open mind.
"Do not hesitate to change your opinion for the purpose of reaching a verdict if you can do so," Judge Alfred A. Delucchi said after summoning jurors to the courtroom just an hour and half after they resumed deliberations.
"The attitude and conduct of jurors at all times is very important," he added. "It is rarely helpful for a juror at the beginning of deliberations to express an emphatic opinion on the case."
The jurors listened with serious, even grim expressions before they were sent back into the jury room to deliberate.
(AP) A boat belonging to Scott Peterson is moved from a Redwood City, Calif., courthouse after the jury... Full Image
It was not immediately clear what led to the judge's instructions, but trial observers speculated jurors are beginning to reach a deadlock.
"They're stuck," said Jim Hammer, a former prosecutor and trial regular. The judge "clearly has indications that they're beginning to hang."
Earlier Monday, Delucchi denied a defense motion for a mistrial after jurors examined the boat prosecutors claim Peterson used to dispose of his wife's body.
Defense lawyer Mark Geragos claimed jurors violated the judge's orders by doing "a juror experiment" when several panelists got inside the boat and rocked it from side to side.
The defense has argued that it would have been nearly impossible for Peterson to have heaved his wife's 153-pound body over the edge of the boat without tipping.
(AP) Scott Peterson listens intently at the beginning of the defense closing arguments in Redwood City,... Full Image
As an alternative to a mistrial, Geragos asked the judge to show jurors a videotaped experiment performed by the defense apparently showing that the boat would have tipped. Delucchi denied the motion.
Peterson is charged with two counts of murder in the deaths of his wife, Laci, and the fetus she carried. Prosecutors claim Peterson killed Laci around Dec. 24, 2002, then sunk her weighted body in the bay.
Defense lawyers claim someone else abducted Laci and killed her, then framed her husband.
The sequestered jury began deliberations Wednesday and recessed for the weekend. Jurors were monitored in a hotel where they could watch only sports and movies on television, and could use a computer without access to the Internet. They were forbidden from discussing the case.
Jurors have two choices should they decide to convict Peterson - first- or second-degree murder. First-degree convictions, carrying the death penalty of life without parole, would mean jurors believe Peterson planned the killings in advance. Second-degree murder convictions don't require a finding of premeditation, and carry sentences of 15-years-to-life for each count.
Also Monday, the presiding judge of the courthouse ruled against media attorneys who were seeking to have cameras stationed about 40 feet down a hallway from the courtroom. Last week, Delucchi banned television and still cameras from the courtroom for the verdict, but said he would allow a live audio broadcast.
Hard to see this case ending in anything but a hung jury.
If this turns out to be another OJ or those twins that murdered their parents type of thing, we should give California back to Mexico with apologies.....
I think the guy did it..no doubt in my mind whatsoever!!
However...I haven't heard of any but very shaky circumstancial evidence.... To me, the DA doesn't have strong enough evidence of case to convict him...unfortunately....Can't blame this on the jury or California....
I think the guy did it..no doubt in my mind whatsoever!!
However...I haven't heard of any but very shaky circumstancial evidence.... To me, the DA doesn't have strong enough evidence or case to convict him...unfortunately....Can't blame this on the jury or California....
There is no doubt that this guy is a low-life.
However, actual physical evidence is weak to non-existent.
All they have is circumstantial suspicion about his activities after his wife disappeared, for the most part.
I was a boater almost from birth. I could handle boats by the time I was in junior high, before I could ever even think about driving.
While a teenager I owned a boat similar to Peterson's boat. I was 165 lb. at the time and there is no way I would have attemtped to have another person in that boat who weighed 153 lb. It would border on insanity to go out into SF Bay in rough weather with that much weight in a boat that size. Forget about having to dump 153 lb. dead- weight over the side. No way. It would capsize for sure. I suppose, though, that for jurors who are not boaters, this would be an unresolvable issue.
Oops! In my post # 7 I had forgotten about the weight of the "anchor/s." Dumping THAT much weight over the side makes it even MORE implausible.
So, his wife's and unborn son's bodies washing up on the shore of where he went fihing 80 miles from his home is just an unfortunate coincidence? Scott's boat was not a rubber dingy. With a good counter-balancing stance, it could be done, especially with a pixie-like person such as Laci.
where there's a will, there's a way (unfortunately)
WHAT WOULD IT TAKE FOR THIS GUY?!!!
I'll remind you that the OWNER lives in California.
Interesting information you provide. I think that must be why the jury is asking to see the boat. Someone on the jury must be saying the same thing you are. Sure seems like there are a lot of ways to dump a body without going to that kind of risk - especially when you would have the evidence sitting in your driveway.
They say every crook commits some mistake. But if Peterson is guilty, he has to be one of the dumbest crooks. If he did take that boat into the SF bay and brave what you say about that boat, he must be a super sailor.
She was presumably wrapped in a blue tarp which was found airing out behind the house at a later date.
Look, common sense tells you that this guy did it. The trial is not about how well the prosecution proves he did it. It is about whether or not he did it.
When you get welfare recipients and mail clerks, or people who are by definition now supposed to "know " anything about a case beforehand (all literate people will be exempt) to judge issue which require intelligence and logic, you will get acquitals a la OJ.
I hope and pray these jurors were also not chosen from the bottom of the gene pool.
sorry, supposed to say "not know"....
(need to use the preview feature, I know....)
This is a California man doing a Charles Stuart/Boston killing his pregnant wife and unborn son. Peterson didn't call the cops and claim a black man shot her, but she's just as dead, and so is baby Conor. Peterson doesn't have to pay alimony or child support for 18 years. This type of homicide is multiplying all over the country. Pregnant women are at great risk.
He also said the 82 cops searching the bay area were wasting their time.
Don't forget, before the bodies emerged, he was "Scott Free".
Anyone notice the similarity between Scott's little plan and OJ? 1. A dog on a leash. 2. Far away (OJ was rushing for a plane). 3. Money in the car (OJ had $10 grand) while in flight from cops).
Scott had a plan and OJ was his partial model.
We won't even get into Amber. It's not necessary. He wanted out with no wife, no responsibilities and no divorce payments.
The other thing is the dog on the leash...
Peterson would have had to put the dog on the leash and let it run loose as he left to drive away ...
I know my dog goes nuts when it time for a walk and if I tried to drive off and leave her she would be running after me and drawing attention to me...bottom line I would not do that as there to much risk someone might notice...
If you just drive away... who cares...
But if you drive away with a dog running after you if any one see that your caught... why risk it...
There any number of way to say Laci left the house that day... hell you could say someone grabbed her at the door...
Yon don't need the walk the dog bit so why risk a loose dog being seen or being found as you drive away
No skin scraping if she was wrapped up in a tarp . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.