Pardon me for asking, but how many times is it necessary for you to drone on about how you are "not convinced"?
In the great scheme of things, your lack of being convinced means nothing. In fact, in the smaller scheme of things--the trial itself--your lack of being convinced also means nothing. It is not your decision to make.
Regarding relevance, let me fill you in on something: it's true that sometimes irrelevant testimony is brought forth in a trial. If the other side does not object, often the irrelevant testimony just keeps coming in.
Why would the other side not object? Because sometimes they realize that jumping up and down, nitpicking over every word, and whether it is "relevant", will only annoy the jury. Neither side wants to annoy the jury.
Another reason testimony you might consider irrelevant might come in is, a judge gives pretty wide latitude on cross-examination. For example, I realize that talking about Kim McGregor's ex-boyfriend's supposed "Hawaiian roommates" is about as relevant to this trial as is, say, Larry King's spouse-of-the-month. Yes, it's irrelevant, but a lawyer is allowed to explore a little bit when he's doing cross-examination.
I can tell you why I think he's guilty--though MY opinion on this is worth as much to this trial as is YOURS: NOTHING.
I think he's guilty b/c there is simply no other person I know of, in whom all three of the following come together: motive, means, and opportunity. It's one of those things where I say, "If he didn't do it, who else could have?" Who has been proven to be around her that day? Only Scott. Who had reason to want her gone (because he'd moved on to a new love)? Only Scott. We've never, ever heard of a single enemy this girl had--not one.
And who was strong enough, resourceful enough, and conniving enough to do it? Scott. Were other men in her life strong, resourceful, perhaps conniving? Maybe they were--but they weren't around her when she disappeared. Scott was.
As for your "Men Are Pigs" comment, I see you've been watching cable TV.
I was NEVER "ready to lynch him before the trial even started." I am offended that you would imply that I was. If the people on here already felt they knew for sure he was guilty, then they would lose interest in these threads. They haven't.
I'd like to ask you a couple of things. Do you feel that the Clinton impeachment was really just much ado about a man being a "pig"? Also, do you admire Mark Geragos?
I will never feel admiration for Mark Geragos. I had that opinion of him long, long before he represented this relatively insignificant manure salesman. How about you? Did you find Geragos' behavior admirable during and before the impeachment?
For example, the police officer that said he talked to one of Peterson's friends that said Peterson talked about how he would dispose of a body. If the prosecution is never able to produce this witness, why raise an objection. When it comes time to call up the police office, all the defense needs to say is, where is the friend that said this. If they can not produce him and if the officer has been discredited on other issues - as he has - it is not going to look good.
You know, I have not made up my mind on this case. Likely never will be able to because I am not on the jury. But it sure seems like a lot of people have made up their mind that he is guilty and they are getting irritated at me for suggesting he might be innocent.
I sure would hate to be back in the days of some wild west town and you all had a rope in your hand. Anyhow, I will leave all you fine folks alone on this thread. Best Regards, BJN