And you, Sir, need to reexamine your ability (or lack thereof) to comprehend the obvious! YES, of course, hard evidence is necessary to convict someone; but so is CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence (the totality thereof) valid to convict as well. The guy is getting his "day in court"...IMHO, he said nor did anything at all that would lend itself to establishing "reasonable doubt" in my mind...I wish the prosecution all the best of success in winning a conviction for this one sick, disturbing individual.
And you, Sir, need to reexamine your ability (or lack thereof) to comprehend the obvious!
Why? To what end? Who gives a rat's a** what your opinion or mine is? Whom does it effect? Is it going to change a verdict? You need to get a life, because Scott Peterson's in NONE of your business and YOU were not appointed to the jury nor are YOU the judge. I believe you would be what is referred to in the ole days as a meddling little busy body who needs more work than free time. I DON'T CARE what is going on in that trial, it had nothing to do with me, does not effect my life, nor will the verdict effect my life. You are EXTREMELY self deluded to believe your opinion counts for squat, in this case, because yoo-hoo..toots, it doesn't. rofl. Read my lips...Fox News is not pounding on YOUR door to see what you think, the judge is NOT calling you to get your opinion. Find something worth while to fight about. PPSSTT they don't care what my opinion is either!! rofl.