“A finding of guilt as to any crime may not be based on circumstantial evidence unless the proved circumstances are not only, one, consistent with the theory that the defendant is guilty of the crime, but, two, cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion.

..”Also, if the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count permits two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant’s guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant’s innocence, and reject that interpretation that points to his guilt.”

For example, Peterson may not have seemed remorseful because he didn’t do it. That would be an innocent explanation.

But the jurors chose the explanation that he showed no remorse because he is a sociopath and a coldhearted killer.

Reading the book by Mr. G. and six other jurors, I was struck by how many things were interpreted for guilt when they were easily explained otherwise. For example, jurors decided that Peterson deliberately stored a tarp so that gasoline spilled on it, which supposedly would cover up the scent of a dead body. But another explanation is this: Peterson’s wife had just gone missing and neatly storing a tarp might not have been foremost in his mind.
Or, elsewhere in the book, one juror, upon viewing Peterson’s boat which had been in custody for years, noted how nice a boat it was and that there was water in the bottom and a pair of rusting pliers. “Now I look at the boat and he’s abusing the boat,” said that juror.
But Peterson hadn’t had the boat for years at that point.
There are other examples, but I think I’ll close here.

Thanks for your comment, and for your jury service on this difficult case. Your comment, though, is exactly on point with this blog post. As you said, “Not showing any signs of remorse through the evidence presented before us contributed to aggravating factors that lead to a death penalty conviction”, which is the point of the research we cite in this post.

I have a great deal of trust and confidence in juries and the jury system, and have no doubt about the care and intelligence you all brought to your duty, You did follow the judge’s instructions, and you weighed all of the evidence, including his behavior at trial. His aloofness was a factor in determining whether he was capable of the crime of which he was accused, which is a valid component of the evidence.

Respectfully yours,

Douglas Keene, PhD

Jurys are smarter than you think. I was juror number eight on the trial, and we followed Judege Delucchi’s orders thoroughly.