Your use of the term "infant Conner" indicates that you have fallen for the media hype. Last I check people are named when they are born and an infant is born. The term "infant" and a name is NOT given to the 1.4 or so million humans who are not born and/or named due to the mothers choice to murder them.
Also the logical argument here about where the bodies were found is precisely that there was NO coincidence.
Hypothetically, it you were the murderer (not Scott Peterson) and you watched tv and saw inumerable videos of authorities searching that bay, wouldn't that be exactly where you would dispose of the body?
This case is full of holes.
So you are saying that someone killed Laci and held on to her body until they knew where the authorities were looking for the body and then dumped it?
And how would you know exactly where he went so you could dump them in the bay so they would wash ashore to implicate him?
Your arguements are full of holes.
You did not follow the case or you
wouldn't post such nonsense.
He is guilty. He has already been tried and convicted. Too late now for any new evidence. Fry him.
If you're gonna use that in the defense of Peterson then go ahead...we can use a good laugh
Also the logical argument here about where the bodies were found is precisely that there was NO coincidence.
Scott drove the the bay where her body was found BEFORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! they began searching the bay. Again, you FAIL at defending Scott.
Hypothetically, it you were the murderer (not Scott Peterson) and you watched tv and saw inumerable videos of authorities searching that bay, wouldn't that be exactly where you would dispose of the body?
???? You telling me that the killer saw the cops at the bay and then dug up her remains (SHE WAS ALREADY IN A BODY OF WATER BECAUSE OF THE DETORATION OF HER BODY!) and then pulled her from one watery grave and then dumped her in the bay??? WTF????
This case is full of holes.
Dont quit your day job cause you aint no Perry Mason