Replies

As far as I can tell, the case against Scott Peterson is marginal. By far the most important fact is that Peterson was fishing, or "fishing" if you like, on X-mas day, around the time Laci disappeared and at the location her body was found. That is a telling fact, of course.

One certainly shouldn't conclude casually that Peterson's presence was a coincidence. But if I were on the jury I would really like to hear more as to why I should believe that Peterson murdered his wife.

As far as I can see, the fishing trip is the only incriminating fact the prosecution can offer. Not being at the trial, I'm relying on the occasional news accounts I read, but it seems to me that the prosecution is blowing it. They appear to be pretending that a host of things are incriminating that are not-- phone calls to Frey, tiny specks of old blood, the fact that Scott Peterson has got plastic tarps in his garage. Why do that? The danger is that the jury will decide that this stuff *isn't* incriminating and then decide that the prosecution's judgment is flawed.