"I agree with both of you. From the moment Peterson was arrested and people started saying he was guilty because he dyed his hair, my first thought was "Of course he was going to run. He's in California. The judicial system there is so screwed up, I'd run too."
Did he kill her? Most likely, just on the odds. Did I see any evidence in the trial? No. The trial as a whole was disturbing. I know there was pressure on the judge to prevent an OJ-type trial, but it did seem that he tied the hands of the defense and let the prosecution get away with a lot. The most disturbing parts where the exclusion of the boat video (which, to address another poster, may have been a guess, but the entire prosecution case was a guess) and the final jury dismissals. It makes me very uncomfortable to know that it was a hung jury after days of deliberation. the judge removes 2 jurors, and HOURS later a guilty verdict comes back. Whether it was intentional or not, it gives the impression of fixing a verdict."
Great Point! I like your logical thinking to see both sides like I try to do. Unfortunately, some on here dont try to look at both sides, some would still say Scott is guilty if another man came forward and admitted guilt.
Thanks for the compliment!
Sometimes I'm a little too analytical and logical. It gets me into trouble! (Also I start to feel a little like Spock)
I have noticed that very few of the responses to your points have been anything other than "he did it". Lack of substantial arguement happens around here sometimes. Luckily, there are a lot of very bright, articulate FReepers too!
At least they haven't tried to zot you yet!!