Don't get the verdict you want? Change jurors.
Physical evidence? We don't need any.
Has America adopted the Soviet system of justice?
Those are my exact thoughts. I personally think he did it, but this is far from over. I think there will be another trial for the reasons you mentioned above.
Yea, if he had just been charged with stealing the boat he would have walked, but the jury responded to the seriousness of the charge nad ignored the absence of evidence.
Notwithstanding, he probably did it.
"Scott may well have done the deed, but I am concerned about the damage just done to our legal system here"
Definately circumstantial evidence. Definate problems with the jury. Definate problem with the Pro-abortion crowd and the anti-death penalty crowd.
I would expect a firestorm of appeals with the possibility of a mistrial being declared.
This thing is not over by a long I'm afraid to say.
Want to obstruct justice? Get on a jury and fail to deliberate while you hold the rest hostage.
Hold on there...the jurors were not removed for trivial matters.
As for the soviet system...a shot in the back of the head reminds you of the US?
And one more point: the jury decided on the preponderance of the evidence...there was evidence and plenty of it.
No. Don't be silly.
When you post stuff like that, you only prove your ignorance of the case.
How the hell can anyone collect any physical evidence? Scott Peterson LIVED in that house. His hairs and cells, even blood, are supposed to be there. Lacy's too.
The defense would be jumping all over a prosecutor who would introduce blood from the Peterson house, blood that, logically, would be in their own home.
Had a stranger broken into the Peterson house and abducted a protesting Lacy, there might well have been strange hairs, DNA, etc., from someone that shouldn't have been there.
Although Scott cleaned that house thoroughly that the bleach stink almost gagged the cops when they first entered, well, hey, the man has a right to clean his own house, right?
"Circumstantial" is a liberal word, and they try to put an undeserved disdain on it. Scott Peterson goes to the very spot TWICE, where his wife and unborn son's body eventually turns up. How lucky is this, the poor man who had NO idea what happened to his wife yet he scans the waters where someone else evidently dumped her. What a coincidence!
Using this physical evidence standard while eschewing circumstantial evidence that is overwhelming, effectively allows spouses across the land to murder their loved ones with impunity because, hey, this stuff is supposed to be in MY house.
Worked on the Jonbenet Ramsey case, too.
I'd say wisdom prevailed in spite of any direct evidence. The jury considered all the evidence and decided that Scott Peterson had murdered his wife and child.
Yes!
I've lost count of how many people have said if they were on the jury they couldn't give him the death penalty because there wasn't enough evidence, but they'd have no problem convicting him. They wouldn't give him the death penalty because they might be executing an innocent man, but it's okay to send an innocent man to prison for life, because a woman and baby are dead and someone has to pay. They don't even care who. I've tried to point out the flaws in that thinking, but not a single person has seen anything wrong with their logic. It's scary.