Awaiting the Peterson verdict....

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Not really, the judge is required to give instructions laying out exaclty what is expected of the jurors and that the prosecution must have demonstrated BARD that each element of the crime(s) were commited by the def. They have not shown that. They have not linked him with the crime. he should not be convicted. AND - convicting him on any other basis is just wrong and undermines the integrity of the legal system. It is tantamount to saying he had an affair so he is a sinner and he deserves the death penalty for that, so we will convict him for that even though that is not the issue in this trial. Granted that is a simplistic analogy, but it illustrates the point

I gues it is just a pet peeve of mine when people think that someone should be convicted by something other than the law. The law is there to protect us and many of the alternatives to the reasonable doubt standard are babaric.

Unga bunga. Seriously though, I do see your point. I am just frustrated that you cannot convict someone just because it is clear that he committed the crime. And honestly I have not followed the case closely enough to know what the jury has been shown. I do think that sometimes people have trouble understanding that reasonable doubt does not mean that you have no doubt in your mind that the person committed the crime.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Unga bunga. Seriously though, I do see your point. I am just frustrated that you cannot convict someone just because it is clear that he committed the crime. And honestly I have not followed the case closely enough to know what the jury has been shown. I do think that sometimes people have trouble understanding that reasonable doubt does not mean that you have no doubt in your mind that the person committed the crime.

I know - people think that means you have to be 100% sure and that most def. not is the standard. If it were, there would be few convictions and many less plea bargains because people would want to go to court and let the prosec. face that HUGE burden

And - it is so frustrating when everyone knows someone did it, but the prosec. ignorantly brings the wrong charges and/or files the case prematurely, like I think they did in this case.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know - people think that means you have to be 100% sure and that most def. not is the standard. If it were, there would be few convictions and many less plea bargains because people would want to go to court and let the prosec. face that HUGE burden

And - it is so frustrating when everyone knows someone did it, but the prosec. ignorantly brings the wrong charges and/or files the case prematurely, like I think they did in this case.

It would seem that perhaps the heinousness of the crime, and the prosecutor's conviction that Peterson committed the crime, may have clouded his/her vision on carrying out proper procedure. I actually did check out a lot of the information on this case on courttv.com but it was a while back. That site is cool because all of the facts are there. After reading it I felt like any jury would have to convict. But, I was not in that courtroom. Please God, let them convict!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

It would seem that perhaps the heinousness of the crime, and the prosecutor's conviction that Peterson committed the crime, may have clouded his/her vision on carrying out proper procedure. I actually did check out a lot of the information on this case on courttv.com but it was a while back. That site is cool because all of the facts are there. After reading it I felt like any jury would have to convict. But, I was not in that courtroom. Please God, let them convict!

Or they wanted to make a name for themselves and then write a book get as talk show - can you say Marcia Clark - who I like BTW

Again and from what I have seen, they have presented nothing but circumstantial evidence and have not directly linked him to the crome. I do not think anyone would like to be convicted on that - yet many are willing to convict on it - go figure

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Or they wanted to make a name for themselves and then write a book get as talk show - can you say Marcia Clark - who I like BTW

Again and from what I have seen, they have presented nothing but circumstantial evidence and have not directly linked him to the crome. I do not think anyone would like to be convicted on that - yet many are willing to convict on it - go figure

Strand, are you a lawyer?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Strand, are you a lawyer?

yes - does it show

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

yes - does it show

Only when you lift your skirt......

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

yes - does it show

Um, a bit. What type of lawyer if you don't mind my asking? Just curious.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by The Tower

Only when you lift your skirt......

touche'

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Um, a bit. What type of lawyer if you don't mind my asking? Just curious.

I have done criminal.

[Patti]

I just heard on the radio that the jury has reached a verdict. It will be read at 4pm eastern time.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Patti

I just heard on the radio that the jury has reached a verdict. It will be read at 4pm eastern time.

He's guilty. If they reached a verdict, that's what it is.

[Mad4stevie]

Originally Posted by dissention

He's guilty. If they reached a verdict, that's what it is.

Wow - we agree for once!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

He's guilty. If they reached a verdict, that's what it is.

It will be interesting to see. But, I agree, it could be guilty. This case has just been bizarre from the get go. I mean what was up with replacing a juror during deliberations right after asking the judge to reinstriuct them and two or so days later a verdict.

In any event, in 40 or so minutes and we will know

BTW - didn't the judge allow the jury not to convict for the death penalty, which, if so, could have allowed the jury to be surer of their actions.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

It will be interesting to see. But, I agree, it could be guilty. This case has just been bizarre from the get go. I mean what was up with replacing a juror during deliberations right after asking the judge to reinstriuct them and two or so days later a verdict.

In any event, in 40 or so minutes and we will know

BTW - didn't the judge allow the jury not to convict for the death penalty, which, if so, could have allowed the jury to be surer of their actions.

Yes, the judge allowed them to convict on second degree murder without the death penalty.