We, the Jury

Deciding the Scott Peterson Case

De: various

Narrado por: Shannon Engemann

We, the Jury is the dramatic story of the seven jurors who convicted Scott Peterson of murdering his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner, despite a series of internal battles that brought the first major murder trial of the 21st century to the brink of a mistrial.

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.

©2005 Phoenix Audio (P)2005 Phoenix Audio

Reseñas de la Crítica

"If you're a fan of Law & Order or CSI, this riveting book is for you." (Roger Friedman, Fox News)

Terrible Narration

The story was interesting, although there were times I felt it was going in circles. It likely was written better than it was spoken. The narrator had a terrible time pronouncing even some of the everyday words correctly. There were also many long dead spaces in the narration - long enough that I wondered if my phone had turned off - and then it would suddenly pick back up again. Very distracting.

Narrator-less

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.

Just ok

I thought it would get more into the legal evidence. It did give a good account of what it is like to be a juror.

Most bizarre recording... is the narrator a human?

What could have made this a 4 or 5-star listening experience for you?

If the narrator had inflection in her voice.

What was the most compelling aspect of this narrative?

The case is interesting/

How did the narrator detract from the book?

She seems to have a possibly computer generated voice. The pronunciation errors were hysterical which was kind of funny. The narrator ruins the listen/

What reaction did this book spark in you? Anger, sadness, disappointment?

The story is very sad. I watched the trial but it has been awhile.

Any additional comments?

I would advise people to spend their money on a different audible book or buy the book.

Unbearable Narration

Any additional comments?

The narrator is just awful She reads fast, with no tone influx. I cant bear listening to her! I want my credit back!

The worst narrator ever!

The story just abruptly ended. It was the strangest thing! Boring storytelling.

The narrator was absolutely horrible, and clearly unintelligent. The amount of words she mispronounced was shocking and distracting. The worst was how she mispronounced Rocha. Lousy. Just lousy

Look Behind the Scenes of a Major Trial

What did you like best about We, the Jury? What did you like least?

This claims to give the reader an true reflection, from a juror's prospective, of what it is like to serve as a juror on a major murder trial that has nationwide media coverage, and it does not disappoint. There were many times during the book, when certain things were repeated several times, which I found a little annoying. However, it was very interesting to hear that they truly did not want to find him guilty and at first did not think he was, but all came to the conclusion together. I also liked hearing how the deliberations were carried out.

What was your reaction to the ending? (No spoilers please!)

I wanted to know more about the after math and how the jurors are coping today.

What does Shannon Engemann bring to the story that you wouldn’t experience if you just read the book?

Her voice tone and flexion gives life to the book.

Was We, the Jury worth the listening time?

Yes, I have always wanted to be on a jury, so it gave me a good idea of what it is like. I was not surprised that it changed all of their lives, as I can imagine it would.

Audibles should have paid me to listen to this robotic-sounding narrator.

I couldn't even tell you what I liked, because I kept thinking how dumb I was to order the audiobook, rather than just read a Kindle or hard copy version of the story

imagine having to read the yellow pages from cover to cover. Now imagine someone speaking in a monotone voice. It was awful. The story may be great, and I think I will probably check out the written version.

I'm sorry, I can't continue to listen to the person who sounds soooo unenthused to be narrating this book.

it's torturous listening to this. Can't do it any longer. she's probably a great actress or has lots of enthusiasm with other things, but in this book they obviously asked her to read it like she's about to fall asleep, and yet someone asked her to read a story to them. she's dog-tired, but she's also a bit irritated.

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.

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.