Peterson Defense Attacks Case As Flimsy

AP ^ | 06/02/04 | Kim Curtis

[BerniesFriend]

I checked and double checked..did not find this anywhere..his story is so weak..but I fear there is no evidence..I hope the scumbag does not get off..

[goldstategop]

If the prosecution's circumstantial evidence can't stand up to critical examination, Scott Peterson deserves to be acquitted if there is reasonable doubt he could have done it. If we're going to sentence a man to death for murder, the state's evidence must be more than simply good enough. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Wacka]

A guy who is cheating on his 8 month pregnant wife drives 90 miles to "go fishing" with no bait at 11 AM on Christmas Eve is innocent?
When I first heard this, I said something is not right.

[goldstategop]

I doubt Peterson's innocent. But that doesn't mean squat unless the prosecution can show he committed the crime. And they have put on their case in court first and it has to survive cross-examination from the defense.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

I doubt he is innocent either - but this is California and California juries are often on another planet.

[John Valentine]

Obviously, you are not a fisherman.

[John Valentine]

I have an open mind on the issue of guilt or innocence.

But I do think that the absence of ANY blood evidence ANYWHERE, on the floor, in the car, on the mop, in the boat, ANYWHERE, is not only supportive of the presumption of innocence, but is positively exculpatory.

[countess]

I am delighted to see that there are still a few people in this country who actually want to see some evidence before they write someone off as guilty.

[txrangerette]

Why blood?

Try Strangulation...

Asphixiation.......

Blunt-force trauma...

Poison............

Drugs.....

[John Valentine]

I don't beleive these are part of the prosecutions theory of the case.

[Kenny Bunk]

There is plenty of reasonable doubt in this case. And of course the SOB did it. Let's hear what the lawyers say and see which of them the jury believes.

Keep an even strain on all lines. If this were the UK, Scotty Boy would have walked a long time ago because of the media hype. He may walk still.

[Honestfreedom]

Scott Peterson is not a sympathetic figure and he will not get OJ justice. If the prosecution has a good case he will fry.

[LibWhacker]

I think he's probably guilty, but I don't think I could condemn a man to death on the strength of the evidence I've seen so far.

[countess]

He is definitely looking good for it, no doubt. But supposedly the State has got to show us a bit more than that.

[Wacka]

He bought the boat 3 weeks before she died. First boat he ever had. He could go fishing a lot closer to home. Claimed he was fishing for sturgeon. Boat was too small and there are no sturgeon near where he said he went. Recently heard that the poles he had were never used. When the cops asked him what bait do you use for sturgeon, he said "I don't know"
Who goes fishing at 11 AM? You go at the break of day.
I don't know about you, but on Christmas eve, Im busy as hell running around getting things set up for that night or Christmas day. And since Laci wsa 8 months pregnant, wouldn't he be sticking close by to do the running around for her?

Just like OJ this guy is aas guilty as hell.

[LibWhacker]

I hope the State has something solid on him, cause in my heart I think he's as guilty as can be. But right now, if I'm on that jury, my vote is NOT GUILTY. :-(

[John Valentine]

All of that may be true, but so what?

So, he just bought the boat? So what? So he was an inexperienced fisherman? So what? So his behavior doesn't conform to your expectations. So what?

All of this can't possibly add up to a murder conviction.

The prosecution had better have something better than the case they outlined in their opening or this is going to be an hugely embarrassing failure for them.

[John Valentine]

If the prosecution has a good case he will fry. There isn't any point for them to be sitting on the evidence after the trial has started.

Based on the opening, I think the prosecution is in very deep doo doo.

[genghis]

having a bunch of 85 iqs on the jury certainly help the defense.
Aassume scott peterson is innocent. what would he do? Go to the fbi headquarters and take a lie detector test. Since he didn't do this-
is a proof that he is guilty.
Unfortunately our legal system is wonderful for enriching lawyers, not so good at other things.

[NYCVirago]

But I do think that the absence of ANY blood evidence ANYWHERE, on the floor, in the car, on the mop, in the boat, ANYWHERE, is not only supportive of the presumption of innocence, but is positively exculpatory.

Gosh, you're right. There's no way to kill somebody without having blood all over. Heck, even if you strangle someone, the blood gets everywhere. The prosecutors should just give up now. (/sarcasm)