explain why they think he is guilty..
I think he's guilty because of his shifting alibi that he wouldn't commit to any one story. His first impulse was to lie. His alibi shifted from golf to fishing to golf to fishing on Dec.24th. I think he's guilty because he was at all the potential scenes of crime his house, the warehouse, the bay and he had access to a boat which would have been needed to bury her body at sea. I think he's guilty because he had the time to do the deed about some 8 hours. He also had motive. He was 'extremely' motivated to seek sexual favors elsewhere..
He would have had a more believable alibi if he were to prove he was busy with one of his affairs on Dec. 23-24th. But of course it couldn't have happened that way because well how can you murder your wife while in the company of your mistress, who by the way, has no knowledge of the wife and child..
So when people spout that he's a cad (a man who acts with deliberate disregard for anothers feelings), I'm reminded that he is a CULPABLE ARROGANT DEFENDENT= CAD.....
Perfect, jc!
You should be on the prosecution team. You are more convincing than they are. A couple of points.
I think he's guilty because of his shifting alibi that he wouldn't commit to any one story. His first impulse was to lie. His alibi shifted from golf to fishing to golf to fishing on Dec.24th.
There are reasons to give a conflicting story to different people for the same day. This itself is not reason enough to convict. That he mentioned fishing at all would seem to be in his favor. That is the last thing I think someone that did this would mention. Or, maybe his alibi of golf was not a good one and that is why he mentioned the fishing trip.
I think he's guilty because he was at all the potential scenes of crime his house, the warehouse, the bay and he had access to a boat which would have been needed to bury her body at sea.
That would certainly lead someone to suspect him. But, people can be the victim of circumstances. It has happened many times before. And if he was set up by someone, as in framed, then of course it would look this obvious. That is why we should need much more than this to convict.
He also had motive. He was 'extremely' motivated to seek sexual favors elsewhere..
Perhaps, perhaps not. By this standard, every spouse that cheats is motivated to kill and I don't buy that.
You could have added, why did he change his hair color and try to run before being arrested. It is not unreasonable, though, that someone would consider running even if they are innocent. If he realized he had been set up or that it sure looked bad even though he was innocent, why stick around.
Again, what you say points in his direction. Too me, though, it is not enough to convict.
Did you hear the stuff that came out on Amber Fry? According to what I heard on Greta, she has been in some very similar situations with other men. Some and exact match to the circumstances in this case. Did anyone consider that she could be involved? The cicumstantial evidence you say points to Scott Peterson could as easily point to her. What if she told Peterson what she did, that she had done it. And let him know he had set him up. Had you considered this?