Wake Up Call?

Dear Viewers,

I am surprised at how many e-mails I have received telling me not to have former Scott Peterson juror No. 5 (search) on the show again. And yes, with some of the particularly hostile emails comes that familiar tag line: "and go back to CNN!" What's with that? Get over it!! I have a long term deal here at FOX and I am staying.

Frankly, if you are interested in the Scott Peterson trial, I would think you would want to hear from former juror No. 5 — he has "been there," been part of the jury, so can give you his insight into the panel, the judge, the lawyers and how he viewed the evidence thus far. I would think you would much prefer hearing about the trial through his eyes — since he was going to decide the case — than reported or analyzed through someone else's eyes who was never intended to have responsibility to decide the case. Remember, he was chosen by BOTH the prosecution and the defense to be on this panel. Apparently both sides thought he would be fair and analyze the evidence.

I love our reporters on the case, but I would much rather know what a juror, sitting in the box, two feet from the prosecution table and five feet from the defendant is thinking when, for instance, the photo of Laci's remains are put on the screen... or when Laci's devastated Mother takes the stand... or when a key piece of evidence is presented. The jurors have a huge duty and I want to know how they see the evidence in such an important case. What is the powerful evidence that could persuade this juror one way, or the other?

As I noted Thursday, this juror is a "gift" to the prosecution. Many of us have thought the prosecution was having a struggle presenting its case. But did the jury think so? You can't ask the jurors, but you can ask one juror — juror number five. He is a "wake up" call to the prosecution, which they would not otherwise have if he quietly went home and we did not hear from him. The prosecution may change its strategy – they can't change the evidence — as a result of the statements of this juror. Of course, the prosecution may think this is just one juror and that he is alone in his thoughts and continue the strategy. I would not recommend it but I am not prosecuting this case.

When we book him, we are not asking you to agree with him, or like him. We are saying, this is what a juror — not necessarily all on the panel — thinks or sees in this case. You can't get closer to the trial than talking to a juror. Booking guests is not a popularity contest of who you like. It is an effort to get you as close to the news story as possible. Frankly, when I practiced law, after trials I always enjoyed talking to the citizens who served on my jury. Jurors have a vantage point that is different from everyone else in the courtroom. I am not judging what kind of person the juror is, what his motives might be. I am bringing you information.

Bottom line: I want to get you as close to this trial as I can, so that you can decide.

E-mail No. 1

Great show! Watch you every night! However, please do not give juror #5 more than his 15 minutes of fame. Personally, he seems to be arrogant and thinks very highly of him self. In addition, he just seems like a guy who thinks a woman should just "get me a beer".
Have a great day!

E-mail No. 2

Dear Greta,
I hope that the Laci Peterson murder case is not going to turn into an another O.J. Simpson three ring circus. While I agree with you about becoming educated as to what happens in a court room and that we can learn a lot from this juror being bumped for being a poor example of what a juror should be, does the media really need to give this guy what he really wants and that is his fifteen minutes of fame? Does anyone really care anymore about the victims here, their families or even about the defendant? Until I no longer have to view and hear "Juror #5" your show is on hold at our home.
Joli E.

E-mail No. 3

The fact that you would give that loudmouth idiot the floor and act like he's some kind of "expert" is appalling. I am so shocked that you would even do such a thing. Furthermore, you have him on with a panel of experts that are your regulars and he gets to weigh in on the matter? That is just ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned he has zero credibility for acting the way he did in that courtroom and I would not give him one bit of credence. If you want to cover the story, that's fine but it's almost as if you are totally siding with the defense on this and the prosecution still has a chance to convict Scott Peterson who is GUILTY!!!!
Catherine Logan

E-mail No. 4

Juror No. 5 needs to be relegated to obscurity as soon as possible, not made into some type of hero on national TV. Jurors get dismissed for a variety of reasons every day. There was no legitimate excuse for you to interview juror No. 5.
Lynne Sprague

E-mail No. 5

Hi Greta,
I'm a regular fan of "On the Record" but find it appalling that Justin
Falconer has achieved *celebrity status* on your show. The man did NOT take his jury duty seriously and broke the rules. The judge kicked him to the curb. It's time you do too. His *15 minutes* are long over and he has ZERO credibility with many of your viewers.
Salem, OR

MY ANSWER: Judie, Yes, he did break the rules. I agree. But that is not a disqualifier from a news show in my mind. My mission is to attempt to get you as much information about the trial as possible. Some times the mere fact that a person "breaks the rules" makes him, or her newsworthy.

E-mail No. 6

Dear Greta,
I am at this time watching your show. Why in the world do you keep deferring to this guy as if he is SOMEBODY? Why would you think his opinion is important? Why would you think that your viewers would lend any credence to his opinions? He does not represent the jury. He is off... out of there.... We don't care what he thinks. As far as I am concerned, he has discredited himself. He is not even objective. He is not relevant. I hope you will not continue to put him on your show as it seems that in so doing you are trying to validate his opinions. He must have lied to get on the jury as it is so obvious that he is completely biased. He does not count, nor do his biased opinions.
Thanks for listening (reading).
Starr Peters
P.S. We all enjoy Jeff... even if we don't always agree with him.

E-mail No. 7

I watch you faithfully, but I'm appalled at the time your adding to this jerks 15 minutes of fame. Doesn't your staff keep you informed of what's going on, on other news shows??? The leading expert in checking audio on tapes has reported that this juror lied when he repeated what he said to Laci's brother. As bad as the lie was, what he actually said to the brother and uncle of the two people who have been murdered, was even worse. As crude and disgusting as this Falconer is, how can you keep paying him and glorifying him. I know you think his opinion is enlightening, but he is a liar and an unbelievably cruel person.
Dee Shonquist
Las Vegas, NV

E-mail No. 8

You 'use' him to try to bolster your ratings. He is one big mouth who has been shooting off his mouth (and was reading about and discussing this trial even when he was 'on the jury'. He is not worth giving 'the time of day to'.
You seem to blow everything out of proportion when it happens. You don't always know what you are talking about. Having juror #5 on your program was not 'an exclusive'... he had been shooting off his mouth since he walked out of the courtroom when he was discharged. Anything he told on your show he had already told before.
He is 'not a consultant' as you make him out to be. Any person could get up there and answer the questions you asked him on the '24th'. He is NOT an expert in anything, but deceit... he had his mind made up about Mr. Peterson from day 1. Good riddance.

E-mail No. 9

It seems to me that Justin Falconer just may have planned this entire plot for his "15 minutes of fame". Just look at how much more he's gotten! I've just about had enough of seeing his face on TV. He's made his own reality TV show & no one seems to have noticed, but me. Let him go crawl back under the rock he came from, please!
Mandeville, LA

E-mail No. 10

If you have Justin Falconer on your program again, would you please ask him if he thinks O.J. Simpson killed Nicole and Ron.
Gloria Chooper

E-mail No. 11

I like your show and watch you every night. I am, however, disappointed that you are using this juror as an expert who is able to know what the other jurors are thinking about evidence! He obviously thinks Scott Peterson is innocent and enjoying his day of fame. Stick to the professionals!
DF Trinity


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

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