So you think I'm stupid because my opinion differs from yours? I don't think the prosecution proved their case. I could not sentence someone to death when there's only circumstantial evidence. Maybe sentencing them to 25 to life, but not the death penalty. What irrefutable proof does anyone have that he did this? Judge Napolitano even said the prosecution didn't have a case.
Judge Napolitano wasn't at the trial every day.He isn't always right.And unless there is an eyewitness/tape of the crime,nobody but the murderer knows what happened.
If every case had to be "proved" with "irrefutable" evidence,almost nobody would ever be convicted.
I hope and pray that you NEVER serve on any jury!
Good grief. Did you follow this trial at all?
The jurors don't have to have "irrefutable proof," just guilt beyond a "reasonable doubt." "Irrefutable proof" would be a video tape of the murder and a confession. Thank goodness juries in the country aren't held to your standards... there'd be even more murderers walking the streets. No, instead, juries are allowed to use common sense as well.
I guess the physical proof of the bodies being at the alibi site, the hundreds of lies that the judge told the jury they could use toward a "guilty conscience," the circumstantial evidence and the possible motive(s) were more than enough for twelve "reasonable" people to override the theory of the "Satanic, homeless band of killers" that Geragos said tried to "frame" Scott Peterson for some unknown reason.
Imagine that... convicting a murderer without the crime being caught on videotape.