 |
|
|
|
| Customer Review: |
|
1: Heartbreaking
This is a good look into what it could be like to be a jurror in a case such as this one. The stories of some of the jurrors that were there are heartbreaking, and the way each and everyone of them had some type of connection to Lacy is unbelievable.
|
2: Good book - wrong verdict
The book was interesting, but I agree with other reviewers that it is repetitive and not particularly well written. After reading "Presumed Guilty", I am convinced Scott P. is innocent. Not the jury's fault about the verdict, they were not presented all the information.
|
3: Excellent, interesting, intriguing - great read overall
I'm a 'fan' of true crime stories. I find the psychology of these stories as well as the legal aspect always interesting. This book provides the best of both worlds and probably most of all from a 'layman' perspective - that of the jurors selected for the Scott Peterson trial.
I watched a lot of coverage on the Peterson trial and this book provides an interesting glimpse of what was going on from the inside, from the jurors' perspective. Their impressions of Peterson, the legal teams and the inside look at the legal process involved were fascinating.
I found the book to be well written and a good read.
I would highly recommend to anyone who has an interest in the Peterson case, criminal psychology, true crime and/or the legal process.
|
4: Awesome
Thank you for your excellent service and cheap rates. My book arrived in a timely manner and in excellent condition. Keep up the good work!
|
5: Extraordinarily thin and ethically disturbing--should juries profit from books?
This book adds nothing to what we already know...and that's actually a good thing. In theory the jury had access only to what was shown in court, obviously. There are no revelations, no surprises, and again, there really shouldn't be. The jury's only job is to reach a verdict in the case and in the sentencing phase. The system is very delicately but deliberately intended to be a "closed box"--something which is not opened up and examined by others. The mere act of obtaining an agent, writing a book, and discussing their internal process (though there isn't that much of this in the book) only provides fodder for Scott Peterson's later legal appeals.
The issue of jurors selling their stories after a trial has become so troublesome that some serious jurists have argued that jury deliberations and juror "tell all's" should simply not be allowed. Of course, there are strong views on both sides of this. But surely in death penalty cases, when a person's life is at stake and when the most stringent forms of appellate court review are mandated, it would be wiser simply to eliminate the idea of jurors publishing their own concepts of what went on in the jury room.
|
|
|
|
|
