[Jokelahoma]

Tell you what they found? No, I wasn't on the jury. But if the system works as it should, they "found" what they needed to prove to them beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime of which he was accused. No one but he and Laci (and Connor, in his way) were present at the time of the crime, so no one could have anything other than assumptions to go by. So if you were to give in to your fears, that manes that any time anyone commits a crime and no one sees it happen, we have to let them go free. AFter all, any trial would be based on assumptions, right?

The system worked as it is laid out. Both sides presented their case. The jury heard weeks of testimony from the prosecution and the defense. In the end, the evidence and testimony convinced twelve people Scott Peterson was a murderer. I'm not certain why that scares you. Can you elaborate on that?

[Not just another dumb blonde]

If all the evidence was circumstantial, the prosecution had nothing. And they found him guilty on that and that alone. Just for a moment put yourself in his shoes. Isn't he supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? He was tried and convicted before he was arrested. They had a change of venue. Do you think those people didn't read the paper or watch the news? There was no such thing as a fair trial in this case. I'm just saying they didn't have strong enough evidence for a capital crime case.