by Tabitha Kent
Disclaimer
Please also refer to all of CrimePiper’s Richelle Nice articles posted to this blog which you can find here.
Also, bear in mind, Richelle Nice is not team Peterson’s first victim in relation to alleged juror misconduct.
As we approach the date of the closing arguments for the evidentiary hearing on August 11, 2022 here is a basic rundown of the main points from each side as well as a brief history.
Scott Peterson supporters believe that Juror #7, Miss Richelle Nice, was a stealth juror and that she lied on the questionnaire in order to gain a seat on the jury. They purport this untruth because of very human mistakes she made while filling out the 33-page juror questionnaire.
The first alleged lie is that Nice checked ‘no’ upon being asked if she was ever involved in a lawsuit.
21 Years ago, in 2001, Nice filed a temporary restraining order against her then boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend. Legally speaking, a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) is considered a lawsuit. Therefore, instead of considering that her denial of a lawsuit was an obvious mistake by a layman not well versed in legalese, team Peterson keeps maintaining to all major and minor media outlets that Nice deliberately lied so as to “fry Scott,” as they put it.
However, the State as well as Laci/Conner Peterson supporters view it as absurd to equate a misunderstanding to a deliberate fabrication. In fact, almost everyone I’ve spoken to that had no legal background was unaware of the fact that filing for a TRO meant one was involved in a lawsuit.
The next so-called lie team Peterson accuse Juror #7 of is her answering ‘no’ to the question whether she had ever been the victim of a crime.
Their argument is that if her then boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend slashed the tires of his vehicle, and kicked at a door to their shared apartment in 2001, then surely she should have thought of this in 2004 when filling out the questionnaire and checked ‘yes’. Unsurprisingly, juror #7 did not consider herself a crime victim, therefore she answered ‘no’, which is a truthful reply, as Nice was not directly, not even indirectly, attacked. Also, isn’t the entire purpose of filing a restraining order to prevent being the victim of a crime?
Richelle Nice grew up in a rough part of town. Growing up, engaging in physical violence even into her adult years was not uncommon in her neighborhood. Never once did she consider herself a crime victim, and almost all of the time, police were never called for the various scuffles she was involved in.
But Richelle Nice knew that any future interactions with the ex-girlfriend would most likely result in physical violence at some stage. Being pregnant, she also anticipated this would constitute a real and physical threat to her unborn child, which is why she noted on the TRO that she feared for the safety of her unborn child. Never once was Ms. Nice assaulted while pregnant, and the charge for the tire slashing and door kicking incident was vandalism, not assault, despite team Peterson’s best efforts to convince the public otherwise. Peterson parrots such as reporter Ted Rowlands did not tire of repeating this disinformation when reporting on the subject.
Watch Ted Rowlands parrot team Peterson’s lies here:
And don’t forget Janey Peterson’s “interpretation” of events:
In the course of the State’s investigations into the misconduct claims against Richelle Nice, a domestic violence call from 2000 was discovered and turned over to the defense, which naturally had a field day with it. They immediately began proclaiming – as publicly as they always do – that Juror #7 was a victim of domestic violence, which is a crime, and that this was yet another reason she should’ve checked ‘yes’ on the jury questionnaire.
The problem with team Peterson’s claim is that it was actually Nice who beat her ex-boyfriend. Once more, Ms. Nice kept ascertaining that she was not the victim during this particular incident either, and also – neither then nor now – considers herself one. You cannot force victimhood on people. And indeed, it had been her then boyfriend who had placed a call to law enforcement that evening to request help. Not only was this a tremendous disappointment for the defense, which came to light during testimony, but it further branded them as liars. Projection is a funny thing, they say…
At the evidentiary hearing for the alleged juror misconduct, a witness for team Peterson, Ms. Bracksher, was heard to speak about the police report filed in 2000. What’s interesting about Bracksher is that she gave two different declarations under penalty of perjury and ignored a subpoena. Unlike team Peterson, we do not call her a liar or place any blame on her for not being skilled enough to understand all the legal terms and processes used in court. The layperson is bound to make mistakes and misunderstand certain things when trying to navigate the legal system.
But this witness actually helped the State in proving that most mistakes are not intentional. Like Ms. Bracksher’s mistakes, Ms. Nice’s alleged lies on the jury questionnaire were not purposeful. Peterson’s witness wasn’t lying for him when she misunderstood legal terms/processes, and Ms. Nice wasn’t lying on the questionnaire when she misunderstood certain questions. Where is the room for human error in all of this?
Let’s see what other straws we still have left.
Juror #7 also checked ‘no’ to being a witness and not being involved in a (lawsuit) trial. But she had been required to testify as a witness for the restraining order, right? Meaning that she technically had been a witness. Another alleged lie, as the defense claims, because she witnessed the crime of her then boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend slashing his tires. Wrong again. Juror #7 didn’t witness this event.
The defense ultimately settled on still branding her a liar because she was an auditory witness to her ex-boyfriend’s door being kicked by his ex-girlfriend. In other words, she had admitted to having heard the vandalism through the closed door.
Again, pointing out what something technically means in the legal sense does not mean that person actually lied. (In case you wonder about the many, completely deliberate, lies that Scott Peterson himself purported, feel free to browse through our 35+ articles on the Peterson case; you won’t be disappointed.)
Here’s a fun fact: Did you know that Ms. Nice and the ex-girlfriend mentioned in all this hoopla are now friends? They made up at the courthouse and Ms. Nice dropped the temporary restraining order against her. Forgive and forget…unless you’re on a jury three years later and have the misfortune of making the acquaintance of team Peterson.
Moreover, juror #7 was an alternate juror, which already calls into question how much of a “stealth juror” she viably could have been. She sat in court each day and yet never had a single person to discuss the case with, as she wasn’t involved in the deliberations with the original twelve jurors.
Anyone with some basic level of human cognitive empathy is able to imagine how frustrating this experience would have been. By that time, the mountain of circumstantial evidence that proved Scott Peterson murdered his wife and unborn baby was understandably upsetting to Nice, who was bursting with all the things she had not been able to say before. So once she was chosen as an actual main juror, she made her opinion known. While no one recalls the exact words she uttered eighteen years ago, it was something along the lines of: “He needs to pay for what he did to Laci and baby Conner.”
The remark was made after hearing and perusing all evidence from both the defense and prosecution, and yet the defense is insistent that she had always had it out for Scott. This is not only a ridiculous claim to make about an alternate juror whom no one could have foreseen would end up a main juror, but her understandable emotive remark was quite obviously echoed by all other eleven jurors who unanimously found Scott Peterson guilty of double homicide in the first degree. Nice had not known what the rules for deliberating the case behind closed doors were and was informed by the other jurors how to conduct herself, which she immediately did. Neither did this emotional remark suddenly influence and sway the other jurors, nor did any of them decide based on emotions but based on evidence, which you can read in their book “We The Jury: Deciding The Scott Peterson Case.”
It was glaringly obvious team Peterson was desperately grasping at straws and was turning anything and everything pertaining to Nice into a circus-style witch hunt during which they started to focus on character assassination and embarrassing the witness on the stand. They resorted to asking Nice how many fathers her children had, as well as reading aloud letters she had written to Peterson in prison after the trial had concluded. Nice’s therapist had suggested to her the common practice of writing letters to Peterson, without actually sending them. Nice chose otherwise, as is her right, and it is also her right to keep the reasons for this post-trial decision private. Some may argue that Nice may have wanted to understand what compelled Peterson to do what he did, as well as to come to terms with the fact that she had been one of twelve people deciding on a person’s fate. Most pressingly, however, is the fact that Mr. Peterson chose to respond to Nice on several occasions, even going as far as sending her a card for Easter without her having done the same, which is something swiftly brushed under the carpet by team Peterson. Why would he even respond is perhaps a far more interesting question? Reading up until here, you may have come to form your own theories on this issue.
Now. Wasn’t the alleged juror misconduct centered around Nice incorrectly filling out the juror questionnaire anyway? It appears the defense may have projected once more – and perhaps had it out for Miss Nice in reality? Because they had nothing left. Nothing to go on.
Until…
The defense miraculously discovered “new evidence,” after not having been able to shake Nice on the stand during the evidentiary hearing. They brought in erroneous claims of more juror misconduct to slam her with; far more serious accusations than what they had previously thrown at her.
Polite as they are, they apologized for only just then presenting the court with these claims, as they had “only just discovered them,” incidentally, after all their other efforts had failed. Well. The defense appears to have a similar unique perspective as Peterson himself, who, after all, had made a “spontaneous decision to go fishing on December 24, 2002, although his fishing license was purchased and pre-dated four days prior. This bombshell “new information” the defense uncovered was four years old.
Allegedly, Richelle Nice had been in book deal talks with a reporter named Aphrodite Jones during the trial! By golly, that’s not good, right?
Video and Aphrodite Jones photo here:
Their witness to this damning claim of juror misconduct was none other than (just imagine a drumroll here) Shareen Anderson, close friend of the Peterson family and creator of the A&E mockumentary “The Murder of Laci Peterson.” Anderson is a known Scott Peterson apologist and founding member of the ‘Scott Peterson is Innocent’ Facebook group.
According to Scott’s attorney, Shareen Anderson had contacted them and volunteered to testify in the evidentiary hearing. Long story short, after the State’s investigator had questioned her, she had had no evidence of a book deal being discussed during the trial. Instead she ended up saying it was “a feeling” she’d had. As most people know, the jurors’ names are not revealed to reporters, so how would Aphrodite Jones even know whom to contact? Then suddenly a photo (and later video) of Aphrodite Jones snuggling up and flirting with Scott’s attorney, Mark Geragos, resurfaced online… What’s going on there? Who knows. And for the most part, who cares. Unsurprisingly, this “new evidence”/claim was squashed immediately, and I also can’t imagine Aphrodite wanting any part of this charade.
In the end, though, Shareen Anderson lawyered up and suddenly intimated that she had never wanted to testify in the first place. Peterson’s attorneys fired back that she’d volunteered. Trouble in paradise? Their last straw at getting their golden boy murderer a new trial is crumbling right before their eyes.
In a surprising twist, Anderson then had her attorney issue statements of her documentary series being factual. (Despite all evidence to the contrary. Again, you are welcome to peruse this blog and more than welcome to read through the trial transcripts, discovery and more linked on our “Files Section” page.) The question is why she felt the need to do this when it had not even been brought up in court. And shouldn’t documentaries by default be factual? Unless they’re a mockumentary or docu-drama… Be all this as it may, at least she got her money’s worth and was able to plug her fraudulent A&E project to the unsuspecting and gullible public.
With nothing else left for the defense to conjure up, I introduce to you #pajamagate.
Juror #7, Ms. Nice, referred to Conner as “little man” in an interview after the trial. A common moniker for male babies, toddlers and children.
When Shareen Anderson and her cameraman were interviewing Juror #7 for their fraudulent documentary that was filled with untruths and omitted evidence in favor of presenting Scott Peterson as innocent, they spotted the photograph of a baby on Nice’s wall. In the photo, the baby was wearing pajamas that read “little man.” Anderson and the cameraman exchanged a “look,” as they claim. Oh wow. A look. The “look” made it into their legal declaration, by the way.
Both had remembered this juror using the term “little man” when referring to baby Conner Peterson. Their wit as sharp as spoons, they deducted that since these photos on Nice’s wall were of her family, the “little man” in pajamas must be her son, and if that is the case, then this was evidence that Nice viewed Conner as her own son, giving him the same nickname! Stop the presses, for this proves Nice was biased.
Little did they know that they had once more come to the wrong conclusion about juror #7, because the photograph was of Nice’s grandson who was born in 2015, a decade after the trial.
As noted earlier, “little man” is a rather common term used for little boys, and it is in fact so common that it’s been – and being – printed on many different pajama sets by many different retailers. When trying to use the hashtag #littleman on Facebook, one can see that this term has been used 857,000 times.
You can read more about #pajamagate aka #littlemangate here:
And here:
Pajamagate was their last straw to make a broom with which to sweep under the rug the overwhelming evidence against Scott Peterson by blame shifting, projecting and redirecting the focus on completely innocent people such as Richelle Nice.
Last but not least, they did not prove in any way, shape or form that Nice intentionally and with ill intent lied to serve on the jury. In fact, the State reminded the court that she was initially dismissed by the judge during voir dire. Wait, what!? Yes. She was called to sit back down to answer more questions by Scott Peterson’s own defense attorney! This is of course an element of the whole debacle deliberately left out by those trying to sell the stealth juror narrative. Or rather, the “stealth alternative juror” narrative.
A point that I still cannot believe was not brought up at the hearing was how Ms. Nice answered question 97a on the jury questionnaire. Another question she obviously misunderstood which asked if she could set aside any bias from anything she’s heard about the case before this date. She answered ‘no.’
Wow. Not a very good “stealth juror,” is she, now? 😂
Another stealth juror post with photos:
Remember, team Peterson is claiming she didn’t make mistakes on her jury questionnaire. They claim she deliberately lied and she did so just to get on the jury in order to “fry Scott.” The more important question is how this million dollar defense team could overlook 97a and, if they took the reply seriously and not as a mistake, insist on calling her back, insist on having her on the jury essentially.
Read all about 97a here:
Now that you’ve read my take on this Peterson-led witch hunt on Richelle Nice, you are free to form your own opinion, and I highly encourage you to do so by reading all of the briefings and documents available online. This is how I came to my own conclusion regarding the hearing. Mainly, I read their claims/examples of misconduct and then discovered all of them were either baseless, grasping at straws, untrue, or completely and irrevocably rebutted during the hearing.
Here is how to access the documents in the Scott Peterson case
To access the case file:
1. Click on ‘Online Services’
2. Click on ‘Online Case Access’
3. Click ‘Accept’
4. Click on ‘Odyssey Portals’
5. Click on ‘Odyssey Public Portal’
6. Scroll down to where it says ‘To proceed to the Odyssey Public Portal please click here’
7. Click ‘Smart Search’
8. Type in ‘Peterson, Scott Lee’
9. Check ‘I’m not a robot’ and ‘Submit’ (if that window pops up)
10. Click on the case number ‘SC055500A’
11. Wait for the files to download
12. Click on ‘Documents’ on the right side if using a laptop, scroll to the bottom if using a smartphone.
13. Click on ‘View Document’ to view various files.
14: Click ‘Download document’ to read it.
On a last note, Richelle Nice, who has been incredibly brave and resilient throughout the ordeal of this character assassination, has our full support. Here is a photo she provided to us and a social media post of hers we have permission to post and do so gladly.
Related post
Scott Peterson: Richelle Nice Not Defense Team’s First Alleged Juror Misconduct Victim
*
Header image: Via Scott Peterson Is STILL Guilty
Edited by Erin Banks
CrimePiper 