|
|
03/20/10
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
November
15, 2004
The jury did exactly what I predicted they’d do after they got rid of the jurors who were impeding their rush to judgment: They came back with a unanimous verdict, and they did it within three days. In fact, they did it in just six hours. It was a masterful piece of jury manipulation, but I really don’t think it is going to fly very far under appeal.
Over the next few weeks, and after Peterson is sentenced, we’re going to hear about what really happened during the deliberations from the female juror who got bounced for allegedly doing her own Internet research on the Peterson case, and from the original foreman who was replaced as well. I strongly suspect both individuals were demanding the panel deliberate on the evidence, rather than emotion, and it is my belief the original foreman, a man with a law and medical degree, would have prevented the jury from reaching a unanimous guilty verdict had he stayed. If that turns out to be true, then Peterson will probably be given a new trial on appeal.
I am somewhat ambivalent about this turn of events. If Peterson did murder Laci, there wasn’t a shred of physical or eyewitness evidence the jury was shown that would support that specific conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. As you’ll recall, no cause or means of death was ever determined, so this jury concluded Laci was murdered when all the jury really knew for certain was that Laci and Connor are dead. That is problematical on its face However, this verdict keeps Peterson locked up theoretically forever, meaning solid, reliable evidence of his guilt -- or innocence -- could eventually be discovered while he’s safely tucked away. Speaking of evidence, or rather, the lack thereof, I was just wondering about something last night while mentally preparing for the joys an early-morning root canal can bring.
There are surveillance cameras everywhere nowadays, and they are usually in elevated positions – positions that could see down into the bed of a pick-up truck and the boat it is towing. Why is it that Scott was able to drive all the way to the Berkeley Marina from Modesto, launch his boat, and drive all the way back, yet no surveillance camera recorded it? Doesn’t that strike you as odd? Or did the police find images of Scott here and there, but chose not to use that evidence or reveal its existence for some reason? We know the Modesto cops got cute with evidence and the existence of some witnesses helpful to the Defense, because defense attorney Mark Geragos made them admit it. Might there be more the cops didn’t want to reveal?
Wouldn’t a place where boats are moored and launched have security surveillance in place? What about private surveillance systems a large yacht or sailboat might have on board? Did the investigators even look for that, and if they did, what did they find? Hmm…
Anyway, the Peterson case and verdict are illustrative and instructive of how innocent people are wrongly convicted of crimes. I’m not suggesting Scott Peterson is innocent, but the evidence in this case was so lacking as to be completely inadequate from which to draw a guilty verdict – let alone a first degree guilty verdict that assumes premeditation. If the evidence by itself cannot be relied upon to support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then such an errant verdict is being drawn from other sources, be they emotional, pre-existing, or prejudice.
Such a verdict can also be arrived at through fear of public backlash. It took me by complete surprise to learn that the media knew every Peterson juror by name, and had followed every juror home to know where each juror lived!
Just think about that for a moment: You’re hearing a case where the public thinks there’s no possible other person who could have committed the crime but the guy on trial, and the crime itself is so heinous as to shock the senses.
But contrary to all the news reports you read before you were accepted on this jury, the Prosecution doesn’t have squat to support the charges! All they’ve got to show you is pictures of the victim alive; pictures of the victim dead, witnesses who testify the defendant didn’t “act” right. Witnesses who testify about extra-marital affairs, heaps and heaps of fluff and suggestion, lying and whatnot, but nothing of what you took the seat on this jury to hear, that being solid evidence that points to the defendant committing the specific crime for which he is charged. Uh-oh. Not good.
Everybody outside those heavy doors is ready to applaud a conviction and execution no matter how little evidence there is. They don’t care how little evidence there is, because this guy went fishing 80 miles away the day his pregnant wife disappeared, and four months later, her dead body floats to the surface right near where he went fishing. To the simple-minded it’s case closed and that’s that. Just do your job, vote the bastard guilty and go home to friends and family who will slap you on the back and buy you a beer.
But don’t disappoint us, because we know where you live. Maybe that explains why the first jury foreman decided to split, rather than vote his conscience.
Yes, Peterson is probably guilty, but so were all those other people who were wrongly convicted and released only after DNA proved they didn’t commit the crime. Jurors like those who returned a guilty verdict today after 6 hours deliberating non-existent evidence deserve our contempt. Instead, morons just like them will buy them a beer.
Fortunately, there are solid, multiple bases for appeal here, and I believe it will be successful. Carl F.
Worden
|
Archives There Is No Terrorist Threat II How Did Kerry Get To Be The Democratic Nominee? Conservatives Of Conscience: The Republican Rift Widens Poll: Bush Opens Lead On Kerry? If Being a True Christian Were a Crime... The Draft Threat Is NOT A Hoax The Draft Is One Headline Away The Scott Peterson Murder Trial Ends There Is A Terrorist Threat in America- The Peterson Trial Goes Bonkers Complete Archives for Carl F. Worden
| ||||||||||||||
 |
Submit
Feedback
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
