[elli1]

You missed the point. The prosecution doesn't have to display "that" stack of bills at the trial. Any old $15,000 stack of money will work. The decomposed bodies are "evidence". Does the prosecution intend to wheel the bodies into the courtroom? Of course not.

And just suppose that a suspect/ arrestee has a dependent family at home. Can you justify the cops keeping LEGAL money as evidence when the family needs the money for groceries & rent? This isn't stolen money.

And, you suggest that Scott can claim the money when he's "acquitted". Surely you don't mean to suggest that it's OK for the state to STEAL the $15,000 even if he's guilty??

The cash suggests that Peterson was going to flee, but sure as heck doesn't prove it. There are reasonable explanations, such as anticipating that bank accounts are going to be frozen & not wanting to "announce" who he is by using a credit card/ check. Hair color change & a different car doesn't prove he was planning to flee; a reasonable explanation is that he just didn't want to be recognized when he went out to buy milk or cigarettes. Why he was carrying his mother's ID (if true), I don't have a clue. It's not like he could pass himself off as his mother & using his mother's ID isn't exactly hiding.

BTW, I think he's guilty. But I have a problem w/ cops locking up LEGALLY acquired money.

[cyncooper]

You missed the point.

I didn't miss any points, nor did I say or imply some of the stuff you dreamt up.

LOL

If they are legally bound to turn it over they'll be ordered to. Since I don't anticipate that, I'll stand by my observation.

Also, for someone who seems to think it is others who have leapt to conclusions (erroneously, evident from your faulty train of "thought"), it appears to me---and I might be wrong, but you CAPITALIZE it every chance you get---that this money was legally Peterson's.

I don't think that has been established.

[Canadian Outrage]

We DON'T KNOW where the money came from. It may be legal, it may NOT be. Suppose it was stolen from his employer? They were looking into his employee expenditure records. There are things here we DON'T KNOW.

[cyncooper]

My last post should say "It appears to me that you have concluded the money was legally Peterson's and I don't think that has been established."

Note: I have not concluded it was not legally his.

I haven't made any conclusion on the money, except it appears suspicious when taken in context with what else he had and the circumstance he was in.

[Howlin]

The prosecution doesn't have to display "that" stack of bills at the trial. Any old $15,000 stack of money will work.

Are you new to legal trials? Sure sounds like it.

[Sandylapper]

BTW, I think he's guilty. But I have a problem w/ cops locking up LEGALLY acquired money.

Same here, elli1. Say, you don't think Stanislaus County would invest that $15k (short term) and keep the interest, do you? That kind of makes me think about the $3 million Santa Barbara has of M. Jackson's money. Was it a cash bond? What do they do with that kind of money lying around? Put it in a safe or invest it? Who gets to keep the interest when he's found "not guilty"? Just stuff to think about, I guess.