Peterson trial verdict...

[disneysnowflake]

All that jury has to do is find reasonable doubt.

I watched The Abrams Report over a week ago. Dan Abrams spent one day showing what he'd say as closing arguments for the prosecution. Then on another day Mr. Abrams showed what he'd have said as closing arguments for the defense.

After hearing the closing arguments for the defense as given by Dan Abrams on The Abrams Report on MSNBC I'd honestly say that I'd be questioning things.

I don't know whether he did it or not.

I just feel so sad for Lacy, her baby and both families.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Originally posted by DrCavin
Only in America can you allow OJ, Kobe & now possibly Scott Pererson to comeout without jail time, but Martha Stewart is doing time in prison...

I know, how crazy.

 

[Planogirl]

Remember, reasonable doubt is enough to get him off. If he walks, I blame the prosecutor for presenting a lousy case.

 

[puggymom]

Originally posted by palmtreegirl
Even if he's found guilty it won't be over. The trial turned into such a mess, there are numerous grounds for appeal now. Ridiculous.

Absolutely, if it's guilty, which I doubt since they are back so quick after starting with two new members, this will be far from over.

 

[jennyanydots]

for the Kobe case, what's come out since the charges are dismissed is that the proseecutor did a mock trial, submitted the alleged victim to intense cross examination, and her story didn't hold up.

OJ was a case of jury nullification. they let him walk because they hated the police officers. had the case been tried in a different venue, he would still be in jail.

everything I've read about the Peterson case says he did it, but obviously there was enough to suggest otherwise, or he wouldn't have taken his chances at trial.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Well gee thank you Counselor Jenny.

 

[LMC]

I think it may be a compromise verdict too.

If he does walk, shame on the prosecution for going to trial without enough to convict! If they had sat back a few years, he probably would have done enough/said enough to get himself convicted then they could have gone to trial. There is no statute of limitations on murder so they could have waited until more came about. What if they find the concrete blocks and wire, etc in a year or two? If he is found not guilty today, then he's off the hook.

 

[luvsTink]

Well gee thank you Counselor Jenny.

That seems a bit mean. But maybe you are joking and I just have had a bad day....I mean, arn't we all in here playing sideline jurors?

Not only is it about reasonable doubt, it is about innocent until proven...
It was up to the prosecutor to show beyond a reasonable doubt and if they didn't the jury MUST say innocent.

Anne

 

[KrnB]

Originally posted by jennyanydots
it's a "verdict", not an announcement, so it's not a hung jury.

the former prosecutors who work in my office suspect it will be a "compromise verdict", that is, they'll convict on a lesser charge, not the top count of the indictment -- manslaughter instead of murder, perhaps.

That would be my guess too, although I think the judge told them that manslaughter wasn't an option. Second degree murder, however, is, so I'm guessing that is what they'll go with. They probably don't have enough to say premediated and first degree.

I'm shocked that there's a verdict already, especially with 2 new jurors. I just can't believe they all agree on something so soon.

And I agree - shame on the prosecution if he gets off.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Was it mean? Yeah. But she really is a lawyer and likes to show it off. Though lately she is claiming her specialty is in environmental law.

 

[Planogirl]

I like hearing an attorney's take on these cases. It's an expert perspective if you will. I don't see that post as showing off at all.

 

[mallcat]

I hope he gets time! Such a sad case. I believe he did it, but then I wasn't there to hear the whole case either. Just going by what I've been able to pick up on Court TV, Larry King, etc. I hope if he didn't do it, whoever did will be brought to some kind of justice.

 

[tracy51]

Through out the whole trial I kept hoping the that somehow the defense would prove beyond any doubt that someone else did this - only because I don't want to believe that someone is so much of a monster that he could do this not just to his wife but his unborn son. I know that's naive and there are a ton of monsters out there, but for once I'd like the monster not to be real. Sadly everything I've read has done very little to convince me that in this case the monster isn't real (in other words, I think it looks like he did it )

This whole trial, especially the last few days makes me wonder about what's going on out there. No matter what the verdict comes back as, there are many who will feel that the trial was defective simply by the way things were handled.

 

[jennyanydots]

Originally posted by Miss Jasmine
Well gee thank you Counselor Jenny.

my pleasure, miss jasmine.

if people didn't want the inside information, there's be no Court TV and Dan Abrams would be talking to himself.

I'm not a criminal attonrey, never practiced in that field, but I did take criminal law and criminal procedure in law school -- required courses, you know --and it has given me a few insights.

and yes, Miss Jasmine, I currently specialize in environmental law. just settled a mass tort case in Mississippi where people living near a chemical plant claimed injury due to exposure to toxins in the environment. I've also handled legal malpractice, directors and officers liability, fidelity bond claims...a variety of cases throughout my career with insurance companies and insurance defense firms.

 

[MosMom]

I think there is a good chance he did it as well but the thought of sending him to jail on very little evidence frightens me a little. I was just recently watching a show about a police officer accused of murdering his girlfriend and they had circumstantial evidence. Everyone was convinced he did it. It just seemed far too convenient he had just been at her apartment and they had a fight. It was all just too much of a coincidence for him not to have done it. Well, after spending 11 years in prison they found he didn't do it. A random criminal did it and it was proven with DNA.

No matter how guilty the guy seems, it doesn't mean he did it and I would have a hard time condemning him without damn good evidence.

 

[jennyanydots]

after he gets off, he's going to go hire the same investigator OJ hired to find the "real killer".

honestly, you don't know what goes on in a jury room, so it's all speculation at this point. we'll find out in 1/2 an hour.

 

[disneychrista]

WOW!! The 11 oclock San Francisco (ABC) News had said they did not think there would be a verdict today. I, certainly didn't expect. WOW WOW WOW!!!

I certainly hope it is foudn guilty, I think he did it. But I was really hoping that there was going to be a hung jury because everything that I have heard on the news regarding the trail, I am not sure the procesecution "proved" that he did it.

 

[snoopy]

I never thought there was enough evidence provided for me to unequivocably believe the guy did it.

Of course, I'm not sitting there on the jury, either. But my gut says "I don't know", and "I don't know" would equal a not guilty from me at this point.

 

[Missy1961]

jennyanydots, I like reading your analysis of the situation (and others). Keep them coming!

 

[Mermaid02]

I think he did it- thought he did from the minute I saw his eyes look away from the cameras when she was missing- reminded me of Susan Smith and they way she DIDN'T look at the cameras... BUT I don't know if they PROVED he did it. Big difference! I think he'll walk- of course I hope he can't live with what he did and has a miserable life from here on out.