The Peterson jurors argued and disagreed but eventually bonded to seal the fate of the icy killer who dumped his victims into the bullet-gray waters of San Francisco Bay. The seven jurors of We, the Jury were seven average Americans who never imagined the horrors they would face or the phantoms that would haunt them after they convicted the enigmatic murderer and recommended that he be put to death.
This is the story of how the American jury system worked after being battered by critics for the way it functioned in the trials of O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson. Unlike the jurors in those trials, who second guessed themselves, the Peterson jurors do not question their decisions. It wasn't one thing that condemned Scott Peterson; it was everything.
© and (P)2005 Phoenix Audio
"If you're a fan of Law & Order or CSI, this riveting book is for you." (Roger Friedman, Fox News)
I love history, crime and thrillers, biographies and almost anything by the BBC.
I think this story is interesting, however the narration is read at such a high speed that you have to really concentrate to understand what is going on. There are long pauses between chapters and a great deal of repetition. I'm afraid these drawbacks spoilt my enjoyment of what could have been a good read.
"Same Ol' Same Ol'"
Anyone who followed the trial on Court TV or in the media, hoping for some earth shattering information won't find it here.
The book jumps all over the place and does not follow the trial the way it happened. It is hard to follow even if you are well versed in the case. One minute they are talking about the verdict being read and then in the same chapter about jury selection.
Listeners will not learn anything new about Peterson or the jury members that hasn't been previously reported in the media. Don't waste your money on this one.
"get the video"
This book could have been a fascinating look into the process of jury deliberation. However, it was a disjointed mash of "everyone having their say". The narrator was quite poor in her pronunciation of common english words which was actually a welcome distraction from her droning monotone. I counted more that a dozen errors. The premise of the book was quite good, and if you can get past the repetition of facts and quotes maybe you will find it interesting.
The book itself was okay but the narrator was the worst I've ever heard. She had a total monotone throughout. But the part that caused me to write a review is her pronunciation. Or should I say lack of it. A few examples are:
...the word 'hyperbole'-she pronounced it "hy-per-bowl"...WRONG!!!
...Laci's maiden name was "Rocha"...the narrator pronounced it "Roh-ka".
...one time she'd pronound "Delucci" right and the next time she'd say "De-loo-key"
In addition, she didn't pronounce some words the same throughout...one time she'd pronounce a word one way and another time she'd do it differently.
It spoiled the book for me. I'm just an ordinary person, but it's not that hard to learn to speak correctly and pronounce words right...at least the victim's NAME!!!
I won't ever get another book with her as narrator. I feel like I wasted my money.
This is a powerful and heartbreaking story. Having worked in the Judicial system for years, I had no problem in feeling for the jury, as well as, the victim's family, and for those of Scott's family who loved him dearly. However, the narrator was terrible. I nearly quit listening three times because of her dull monotone performance but the story kept me going.
"good story, horribly read"
I was amazed at the poor narration of this title. The narrator frequently mispronounced words, and there were times that a line was read such that it should have gone to a "take two", but didn't. Not a big deal, but it was of a level of poor quality and shoddy work that I have never witnessed. But it fits, because the book is rather mediocre too.
"Most bizarre recording... is the narrator a human?"
If the narrator had inflection in her voice.
The case is interesting/
She seems to have a possibly computer generated voice. The pronunciation errors were hysterical which was kind of funny. The narrator ruins the listen/
The story is very sad. I watched the trial but it has been awhile.
I would advise people to spend their money on a different audible book or buy the book.
"Unfortunate account of history"
I enjoyed the story but hated the narrator chosen to tell this story. Spoke way to fast. Run on sentences or lack of pauses between sentences. Felt like the narrator only had so much digital space to tell the story.
"The narrator almost ruined the story."
I am sure that the book would be more enjoyable to read in print than this audio presentation. The narrator was unable to pronounce numerous words correctly. Do they not have someone with a college education who reviews these narratives and helps to correct pronunciation? I could forgive her slaughtering of "flotsam" and the relatively obscure Latin phrase "vox populi". But she could not even correctly pronounce Laci's maiden name of "Rocha". She gave the "ch" a hard "k" sound, and it was jarring every single one of the multiple times it is repeated. This name was all over the news for years. Could this narrator have double-checked with anyone about how Rocha is pronounced? She said this name over one-hundred times in the story when discussing Laci and her family. Then when she mispronounced "hyperbole" as "hy-per-bowl", that was the last straw!
Her constant mispronunciations were an enormous distraction. Some words were not only mispronounced, but misread. For example, in Chapter 9 she says "a death of evidence", when it clearly was supposed to be a "dearth" of evidence. This is a common phrase with which the average educated person should be familiar. My teenager could have done a better job reading this. It is rushed through as if it were a task to complete with little or no inflection or emotion.
The story itself is gripping and well-told by the original authors. If the narrator had been better, I would easily have given this five stars. It is a fascinating look into our justice system, and helped to reinstill some faith in the trial by jury system.
"A Jury that Reached the Right Verdict"
It was an interesting read, but not as comprehensive as I would have liked.
Reaching the guilty verdict and deciding on the death penalty.
This is my first encounter with Shannon Engemann.
I felt it was a rushed job, and would have liked a bit more substance.
"Where are my ear plugs"
I either want to hang myself or stick a sock in narrator's mouth, it's unlistenable. I want my money back.
Report Inappropriate Content
If you find this review inappropriate and think it should be removed from our site, let us know. This report will be reviewed by Audible and we will take appropriate action.