[Sacajaweau]

The underlying point of the article is that he was convicted by DNA evidence....something everyone is screaming for in the Peterson Case. But let's get real....Scott and Laci were married and their DNA's are all over the place.

BUT they shouldn't be crunched in the pliars AND Scott shouldn't have run to wash his clothes...not under this circumstance. If I were a detective....the big bulb would have gone off when he led me to the washing machine.

[theconservativerepublican]

Read the entire article. He wasnt convicted from DNA, dna is what exonerated him.
The point is people have been convicted because of circumstantial evidence and later found NOT guilty. It does happen.
Just because there is circumstantial evidence--IT DOES NOT always prove guilt. Ask the 100 people in that article. Ask the people already dead that were later exonerated.
As i have said before, I think he is guilty, but I will stand by the fact that there wasnt a fair trial, ALL evidence from Both sides was not heard. I am sure all here on FR would want their family member that is suspected of murder to have a fair trial with all evidence heard.

[Howlin]

If I were a detective....the big bulb would have gone off when he led me to the washing machine.

For me, it would have been walking into the kitchen seeing the telephone book opened to DEFENSE ATTORNEYS in the Yellow Pages.