Dear Viewers,

As you might imagine, many have opinions about what might happen in the Scott Peterson (search) case. I get asked all the time and all I can do is shrug my shoulders. I have no idea — but I admit, I am curious what the viewers think.

E-mail No. 1 is an interesting one that came to me Thursday. Apparently there is a significant group — 36 — who have followed this case closely and thus the e-mail. All I know about the group is that they apparently are from Chicago.

I also learned late last night one piece of information: Scott Peterson's lawyer, Mark Geragos (search), left Redwood City Thursday and flew to Los Angeles. He has to be in court on another case in L.A. Friday. If a verdict should come down today, his partner Pat Harris — who stayed behind in Redwood City — will "take" it. It is not unusual for another lawyer to "take" a verdict and, of course, Harris was part of the defense team. The judge does not want to wait for Geragos to fly back to Redwood City so that he can be there because the judge wants to "take" the verdict as quickly as possible. If you wait, some juror could get "cold feet" and change his mind and then suddenly there are problems. In general — but not always — judges take verdicts as fast as possible. Judges do try and accommodate the families and give them a set time to return to court (i.e. it is not unusual for a judge to say that families will get one hour notice to return to court.)

E-mail No.1

Hi Greta,
We here, the 36 of us, have made a decision in the Peterson case. We have 6 guilty of 1st degree...14 guilty of 2nd degree and 16 NOT guilty. Not sure what the heck this means, but the discussions were pretty wild during our deliberations.
5 female guilty 1st degree
1 male same
——————-
7 female guilty 2nd degree
7 male same
——————-
6 female NOT guilty
10 male same
Thought you may find this interesting.
Thanks for reading this,
Ken C.
Chicago

E-mail No.2:

Dear Greta,
I continue to give the Scott Peterson case a lot of thought. Especially now that his future is in the hands of the jury.
We have heard so much in the past months, that Scott was not out looking for Laci. We know that he did not love her, or he would not have been out looking for the "right person" (heard that in the Amber tapes)... but the thought has come to me that has sealed a guilty verdict in my mind. If he wasn't guilty, and really didn't know where Laci was, he should have been doing everything in his power to find her because Conner was with her. He should have been out of his mind with fear that something had happened to his son, regardless of how he felt about Laci. He wasn't out looking because he knew that Laci and Conner were in the S.F. Bay. He is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Vicki Carr
Ashland, KY

NOTE: I deliberately picked the next two e-mails to show you that I am getting strong e-mails from both sides of the election:

E-mail No.3

55 million people voted against George Bush. That is not a mandate. Please don't distort the truth.

E-mail No.4

I've been watching FNC all day (Thursday) and laughing my head off listening to people try to analyze why Bush won. It's the man, for crying out loud. When we say moral values that is one word used to substitute for so many: honest, trustworthy, good, faithful, likeable, determined, sincere, patriotic, etc. etc. If you substitute all these adjectives for "moral" you have the reason people voted for Bush. I doubt the most Liberal Democrats will ever understand this.
Don Pinkston
Nacogdoches, TX

NOTE: As the legal panel ended last night, Geoff Fieger made a remark that has provoked many e-mails. Most of the e-mails object to his comment, but I have chosen two reflecting opposite views:

E-mail No.5

Greta,
I am Catholic, Hispanic and female in Texas; I ALSO voted for John Kerry... talk about a "minority!" My family and I always enjoy hearing Fieger's comments. Tonight when he made a "Catholic joke," we found it quite funny although someone on the panel gasped! People need to lighten up! That's what's wrong with this country! If I ever needed an attorney I would feel lucky and honored to have him as my attorney — especially if my life depended on it!
I.C.
Cortez, TX

E-mail No.6

Hi Greta,
While watching tonight's discussion of the Petersen jury, one of your guest lawyers made a wisecrack regarding the crucifixion. While this may be a joke to him, as a practicing Catholic I find his flippant attitude offensive. Maybe you should be more selective in choosing commentators.

Do you have something you'd like to say to Greta? Please write to her at ontherecord@foxnews.com!

Watch "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren" weeknights at 10 p.m. ET