Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Booth

Was Scott Peterson innocent ?

3,402 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Jerry Gallo
On 9/2/2018 at 5:14 PM, Booth said:

I don't necessarily believe Nice lied. I highly doubt she was bright enough to understand the correlation.  But deliberate or not, the information she provided was false. Decisions were made based on that false information. Whether that's enough is a legal question I can't answer. I agree that MG was aware of Nice's history at some point before the verdict, or at the very least, should have been. Jackson, from everything I've heard as an outsider and a layman, seems like a better route to go. Why did he want to be excused? What did he tell the judge? His post-trial comments suggest he was being threatened or bullied, and he was obviously pro-defense.

Try re-reading the Feb 25, 2005 motion submitted by MG, I admit not having much recall about it myself. In the least, it refreshed my memory regarding ALL of Jackson's words and will likely do so for you. At first, I Googled 'Greg Jackson Threatened' and was quickly reminded how often people try and make a rhetorical point by editing a quote to lop off or omit pertinent information. The quote below comes verbatim from a few pro-Scott websites. But if you look at the motion, there is more to that quote. There are also other quotes and comments about the other jurors and none of that is included on any of those sites. It's why I call some of these pro-Scott presentations "infomercials".

All that aside, I trust that if you browse the motion, you'll find the sum of Jackson's words to be somewhat contradictory to a conclusion that he was pushed aside solely because he was an acquit. I say that based on a slightly new perspective as someone who has disengaged from this trial debate over the last few weeks. I read it from more of a "does this jump out as a problem" and his words nullify any potential problem I could read into it. I comprehend the "popular verdict...book deal" leading some to conclude this was a statement he was an acquit or pro-defense, but I see it as a confession that he didn't want to conform to the jury rules the rest agreed to comply with. In other words, GJ didn't feel threatened to convict, he felt threatened due to his refusal to deliberate as agreed upon. He took his ball and went home, if you will.

Ironically, the reference below is mentioned in whole or in part three times in the motion. The first mention is the full quote, the third is the one used by many pro-Scott sites. Anytime only the convenient part is used, I tend to diminish it's relevance given how often that happens in debate. Link to motion is below the quote. I usually cut and paste into Word and save, much easier to do a FIND on what turns out to be 80 pages of mostly mind-numbing material.

  “When I took the oath, I understood it to mean that I needed to be able to weigh both sides fairly, openly, and given what’s transpired, my individual ability to do that, I think, has been compromised to a degree that I would never know personally whether or not I was giving the community’s verdict, the popular verdict, the expected verdict, the verdict that might – I don’t know – produce the best book.”

http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Docs/022505Def.htm

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Booth
9 hours ago, Jerry Gallo said:

Try re-reading the Feb 25, 2005 motion submitted by MG, I admit not having much recall about it myself. In the least, it refreshed my memory regarding ALL of Jackson's words and will likely do so for you. At first, I Googled 'Greg Jackson Threatened' and was quickly reminded how often people try and make a rhetorical point by editing a quote to lop off or omit pertinent information. The quote below comes verbatim from a few pro-Scott websites. But if you look at the motion, there is more to that quote. There are also other quotes and comments about the other jurors and none of that is included on any of those sites. It's why I call some of these pro-Scott presentations "infomercials".

All that aside, I trust that if you browse the motion, you'll find the sum of Jackson's words to be somewhat contradictory to a conclusion that he was pushed aside solely because he was an acquit. I say that based on a slightly new perspective as someone who has disengaged from this trial debate over the last few weeks. I read it from more of a "does this jump out as a problem" and his words nullify any potential problem I could read into it. I comprehend the "popular verdict...book deal" leading some to conclude this was a statement he was an acquit or pro-defense, but I see it as a confession that he didn't want to conform to the jury rules the rest agreed to comply with. In other words, GJ didn't feel threatened to convict, he felt threatened due to his refusal to deliberate as agreed upon. He took his ball and went home, if you will.

Ironically, the reference below is mentioned in whole or in part three times in the motion. The first mention is the full quote, the third is the one used by many pro-Scott sites. Anytime only the convenient part is used, I tend to diminish it's relevance given how often that happens in debate. Link to motion is below the quote. I usually cut and paste into Word and save, much easier to do a FIND on what turns out to be 80 pages of mostly mind-numbing material.

  “When I took the oath, I understood it to mean that I needed to be able to weigh both sides fairly, openly, and given what’s transpired, my individual ability to do that, I think, has been compromised to a degree that I would never know personally whether or not I was giving the community’s verdict, the popular verdict, the expected verdict, the verdict that might – I don’t know – produce the best book.”

http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Docs/022505Def.htm

 

I've read through the motion and Jackson's full quote, and am still left with the same impression. Not that he was "pushed aside because he was an acquit" necessarily, but that he wasn't willing to simply follow the consensus and "pull the lever" so to speak. He took his oath seriously, took copious notes throughout the trial, and wanted to spend the necessary time weighing both sides and examining the evidence. And that is precisely what every juror should do. Consider the examples he offered: 'the community's verdict, the popular verdict, the expected verdict, or the best-book verdict'. Clearly he was referring in every instance to a guilty verdict. I know it was later said of Jackson by another juror that he was more interested in talking rather than listening, but I don't see how his quote, even in total, refers to the protocol of deliberations.

I wish the judge had been more insistent and asked Jackson exactly what transpired, but he didn't. Once again, DeLucchi was content to rule in favor of the prosecution and advise MG to just take it up with the appeals court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.