Replies

I don't feel insulted at all. While I'm certainly no expert on the Peterson trial, I don't believe blood spatter evidence was part of this trial, since Peterson killed her on his fishing boat - likely strangled her or knocked her out and then weighted her down and tossed her overboard.

I think you are confused. Additionally, I understand that blood spatter does show up in microscopic amounts in murders where blood actually flies around, but wasn't aware this was a component of the Peterson case.

If you want to insult me, try having real facts, and maybe I might get insulted. FWIW, anonymous insults don't usually hurt that much. but you can try if you like.

There wasn't much blood at all, but there was enough found in the bed (and on a comforter) for the prosecution to deduce that Scott had probably strangled Lacy there.

That's the point ~ this blood was also found through the use of modern chemistry.

If a juror simply didn't believe blood can be found this way, Scott would have walked.

See: http://scottisinnocent.com/Research&Analysis/evidence/scenes/covena/covena.htm