[alloysteel]

So far, the case against Scott Peterson is almost entirely circumstantial. Time, location, and opportunity should be strong indicators that the possibility of Scott committing homicide on Laci and unborn son Conner is much higher than mere chance. Motive may be uncertain, but the extramarital activities by Scott do not speak well. What has not been revealed is a firm, inarguable link between the demise of Laci and son Conner, and actions by Scott that contributed to that demise. The prosecution may have this, if sufficient information may be gleaned from the autopsy report, by knowledgeable persons qualified to interpret that report. There may be other forensic evidence, that place Scott and Laci in proximity after the time he left the house on the way to the launch of the fishing boat.

I have watched a lot of TV courtroom dramas too. Makes me almost as good an armchair expert as anybody.

[MEG33]

I have seen a lot of live trials on Court TV.It can be as tedious as watching grass grow at times.I am looking forward to the prelim as we may get a look at the evidence we are not aware of.I suspect Scott is guilty but haven't a clue as to the evidence beyond his suspicious behavior and the damning coincidence of his fishing trip and the location of the bodies.

[Poohbah]

So far, the case against Scott Peterson is almost entirely circumstantial.

Most murder cases are entirely circumstantial, because very few people kill another person in the presence of third parties.

[Mr. Bird]

There may be other forensic evidence, that place Scott and Laci in proximity after the time he left the house on the way to the launch of the fishing boat. I have watched a lot of TV courtroom dramas too. Makes me almost as good an armchair expert as anybody

My armchair expertise tells me that there better be forensic evidence, because simply being a cheat without an airtight alibi shouldn't be grounds for conviction of murder.

[Devil_Anse]

Good post! And remember, other than eyewitness testimony--and possibly a very reliable confession--virtually all evidence used in such cases is going to be circumstantial, even blood evidence.

And as for confessions, a general, widely-found principle of criminal procedure is that you cannot convict a man on his confession alone. There must be corroborating evidence. That this is a rule in most places tells us that confessions can be quite unreliable.

(If you think about it, what, really, is a confession, but eyewitness testimony from someone who says he was there? Someone who confesses is saying he is both an eyewitness and a participant.)

[Eva]

Do you think that the reports of blood and vomit on the kitchen mop were false?

[runningbear]

could be, but wait to hear when July 16th comes rolling in.... ;o)