I've come to the conclusion that you are on this thread not because you are interested in discussing this case, but because you feel "special" when you stubbornly oppose other posters' explanations of THEIR opinions.
Why not get into the case? You could do with a bit more information about this story. It's not just about opinions, it's about facts, too.
If, OTOH, you are one of those who believes that "nothing we ever hear reported in the media is fact... we weren't there, so we don't KNOW", then I would suggest that you cancel your newspaper, turn off all news channels forever, never listen to radio newsbreaks, and above all, shun news forums on the internet.
I have not opposed anyone's opinion regarding this case. I have been stuck defending my position which is that I am not convinced, the prosecution has not presented a convincing case, it has presented a lot of irrelevant information and what they have presented that is relevant is very weak.
That apparently is not an acceptable position to some on here that were ready to lynch him before the trial even started.
I asked what relevance some testimony has had to this case. Like Peterson talking about sex at a convention he attended. If all he was doing at the convention was talking about it, he is a saint.
Anyhow, if I appear stubborn to you, try getting some people on here to explain why they think he is guilty. One person told me the reason she thinks he is guilty is because she is a mother with children. You know, the Men are Pigs School of Prosecution.