dove
Settlin' In
Posts: 46
|
Post by dove on Jul 20, 2006 20:19:09 GMT -5
I have another question.
Did the jury in Scott's case go home after the trial everyday? And what about before the trial started? Did they go home everynight? Even though they weren't suppose to look up facts on the case, how could they not miss news like President Bush signing the Unborn Fetus Bill on April 1, 2004? If they went out into the puplic, shopping for groceries or anything. How could they not see those National Enquire Headlines glaring them in the face in every grocery store checkout? There is no doubt in my mind that this was a media trial. How coudn't it be?
The Modesto police are covering something up. People were outraged over OJ. I feel they created this whole case to subdue everyone. Why did the media pay so much attention to Lacy's case when they didn't pay any attention to Evellyn? There is so many weird things going on here. It boggles my mind.
|
|
dove
Settlin' In
Posts: 46
|
Post by dove on Jul 20, 2006 20:29:54 GMT -5
Ok, just found out the answer to my own question. They were not sequestered. There is no way on this earth that they could be impartial if they were not sequestered, no way. Not with media today.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jul 20, 2006 20:39:27 GMT -5
Ok, just found out the answer to my own question. They were not sequestered. There is no way on this earth that they could be impartial if they were not sequestered, no way. Not with media today. They were only sequestered for the penalty phase and not during the trial, nor between the penalty phase and the trial. It was reported that people walked up to them in the street and said things like, "Fry the bastard".
|
|
|
Post by andrea313 on Oct 7, 2006 14:53:48 GMT -5
As I read through all of the many questions and "what if's" people are wondering about Scott's case it really just says one VERY inportant thing. That is that Scott Peterson is NOT GUILTY! If there are so many questions and so much doubt just on this large website alone what does that say? ""DOUBT." A person is guilty only if the jury can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That jury did NOT do that. That jury did not WANT to do that. That's why they helped to get rid of and discourage the juror on Scott's case who was the doctor/attorney about going over the case. Things he wanted to try to go over no one else had the time to allow that without harrassing him. This jury didn't like Scott peterson from the very beginning. I also think that Richelle Nice is definitely very mentally ill and never should have been allowed on that jury. Not just that but Richelle Nice had a job at a bank which for her, who is uneducated was a decent job. She was hell bent on staying as an alternate juror stating that her "significant other" would help her after being questioned about how she would support herself if not working. Her significant other must have been the San Mateo District Attorneys office in the civil court case division. Rick Distaso had to have known this. Geragos was too stupid to ask more questions Richelle Nice was being represented by them definitely before Scott's trial, during the trial, however it may have been postponed then, I'm not sure and after the trial. This information is all a matter of public information and I saw it all with my own eyes. Scott is aware of it as are his attorneys. This is a cold, cruel, unjust country we live in and I am referring to the U.S.A. After following Scott Peterson's trial I am angry and ashamed to be an American. Our justice system is one very bad joke and not a funny one but a very unfair and unjust one.
|
|