Did Scott Peterson kill his wife?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

I hope this is ok to post in the lounge.
This is the saddest case. But it also makes me ill to know that we paid so much attention to this case, while other cases are left unsolved because the girls that were killed weren't as pretty or as affluent as Lacy.
So I'm wondering what you guys think. The more evidence I see, the more I wonder how the prosecution and the cops still have jobs. They keep bungling stuff, and their explanation for stuff is so far fetched.
What do you think?

[GOPisEvil]

1. A difficult case to prove.

Not very much physical evidence, but a decent amount of circumstantial evidence.

Lots of evidence that Scott is an adulterous jerk, though.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

2. OJ did it.

[peekaloo]

5. with the help of Osama and Saddam.

[bigwillq]

6. This case reminds me a lot of the OJ situation

Like OJ, it doesn't seem by what I know (evidence, what the media tells me) like anyone else could've done it except Scott.

But they have been messing up key things in this case and the prosecution doesn't seem like they will be able to convict him with the evidence that they have.

BTW, I did not vote. It's not up to me to make that decision. I feel bad for those jurors. It's gonna be a tough call.

[Scairp]

3. Hasn't been a good start for the prosecution

They have not, thus far, put together a cohesive case. They have a long way to go, but have given the defense a great deal to work with as far as creating reasonable doubt. Tough to say at this point whether they have enough to prove their case. Ask again in a couple of months.

[rooboy]

4. It was Gary Condit, because he's a Democrat and they kill people. n/t

[orthogonal]

7. He's innocent until and unless proven guilty.

He's innocent until and unless proven guilty.

I'm sure as hell not going to rail against Ashcroft and the Padilla imprisonment and then turn around and call someone guilty prior to his conviction.

I still believe in the Bill of Rights, even if my Government does not.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

9. MAn, I was just asking for an opinion on what you've seen so far...

I wasn't saying put the bastard in jail RIGHT NOW. sheesh
Duckie

[lawz911]

14. Peterson

"He's innocent until and unless proven guilty."

Actually, that does not apply to you and me. The presumption of innocense is a charge ONLY to the jurors hearing the evidence in the case.

"I still believe in the Bill of Rights, even if my Government does not."

The Bill of Rights does not address the presumption of innocense. The closest you will find is the due process clause of the 14th amendment, but that is also silent on the issue because it is purely statutory in nature.

IMO, when you consider all the circumstantial evidence in this case, there is no other conclusion BUT THAT he is guilty of the crime - planning, opportunity, motive, execution, disposal of the body, cleaning up the blood, lying about his whereabouts, suspicious behavior, fleeing to Mexico, changing appearance. In many cases, such as this, circumstantial evidence is more compelling than direct evidence (e.g. eyewitness testimony). And a basic principle is that circumstantial evidence cannot be used to convict a person if it can be reconsiled with any other rational conclusion pointing to innocense. Virtually nothing SP did following his wife's appearance points to innocense. The jury might be dumb enough to acquit him and, if so, a feather in Garagos's cap. SP won't be the first killer to get off. My prediction with this jury: 10/2 in favor of guilty, mistrial, the DA will offer him life without parole and he will plead guilty.

[ProudGerman]

8. I haven't sat in the courtroom, or paid the media coverage any attention

So, I'll just have to say I can't say either way.

[oxymoron]

10. ...very sorry she's dead

but if I never hear about this fucking case again, it will be too soon. Lot's of people are killed everyday. Let's see some real news.

[Blue-Jay]

11. Probably.

I'm not convinced, but I think that he most likely did it.

/$.02

[Corgigal]

12. to me

it depends on the condition of Lacy's body when she was discovered. If it can be proven that her body either expelled the baby OR that the bloating of the gases allowed the dead child to be expelled then I guess Scott might be guilty. I just don't want to believe a man would cut out his child from his dead wifes body and then place plastic around his neck.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

13. Today, I heard that the baby's umbillical cord was CUT...

THEN The tape was put around the baby's neck. I mean that would put her dying several weeks later than what they say. The prosecution's timeline is falling apart. My mom, who automatically thinks everyone is guilty if charged, thinks he's innocent. So I'm having my doubts.
Duckie

[shingashong]

15. I voted OTHER

because I'm on the fence. I can't say what, but having lived somewhat near it when it happened (no longer live there), it's still a sore subject. I have a friend who actually lives in Modesto and went out looking for her. Terrible and tragic story.

[Heyo]

16. My 2 cents....

Peterson *appears* to be guilty as sin..

What with the 10 grand in cash, right by the Mexican border in a disguise... lying about several things...

However, the state has got NO case.

They really botched it.. they would up in trial way too soon, before they had time to get a solid case together...

All Geragos has to say is "okay... Scott killed her?... how?... where?.. when?".. There has not even been a cause of death established. No cause of death, how do we know she was even murdered? Obviously she was.. but we're talking burden-of-proof here.

He really does seem to be guilty of the crime, but I think he might get off.

Heyo

[liberalhistorian]

17. I strongly believe that he's guilty as hell

and would absolutely hate to see him get off. But, as a paralegal and an American citizen who believes in the rights we claim to cherish and that we claim make our nation different from most others, I also firmly believe in his right to a fair trial and I think the prosecution and the police have really bungled things and the trial is turning into an absolute mess.
'
The final straw for me was the juror who was dismissed for having contact with a Peterson family member. The judge should have declared a mistrial right then and there, and I don't understand why he simply dismissed the juror and replaced him with an alternate. That's grounds for immediate appeal right there should Peterson be convicted which, given the sloppiness and carelessness of the prosecution, is looking less and less likely.