Well, he WAS convicted on circumstantial evidence.
Such as:
-A tracking dog detected the victim's scent on a bay boat launch used by Peterson.
-Peterson said his angling excursion was impromptu, but he purchased a two-day fishing license four days before the trip.
Will you answer the question I posed to you about the other guy being exonerated after being found guilty because of lots of the same types of circumstantial evidence? Or can you?
I feel for the 100 people quoted above that were exonerated. If it was left up to you those people wouldnt have had a chance to be exonerated.