I believe this man is guilty as sin. The circumstances of his wifes disappearance and his double life and odd behavior point to his guilt. Unfortunately there is absolutlely no physical evidence against him (that will hold water) with which to convict him.

I dont believe any jury can convict him of murder, knowing he'll get the Death Penalty, only on circumstancial evidence.

Is there any way the prosicution can get a conviction on this guy?

Truthfully, I don't believe Scott is guilty and I find it incredulous that anyone does. Maybe I shouldn't really say "incredulous" ut it definately lends weight to the idea that "innocent until proven guilty" is just a fantasy. If he is acquitted then justice will be done. I mean what about his actions show guilt, the fact that most people wouldn't act a certain way isn't proof. When it comes to the merits of the case there is just no evidence that he did it, in fact I think the lack of evidence makes it point the other direction.

Funny though, last Sunday i watched a special called "the stairwell" or something like that. It was a documentry where this guy did get convicted of murdering his wife even though there was plenty of evidence pointing that he likely didn't. If you asked me the jury could not get over the fact that the man was looking for a young male lover. The prosecutors emphasized this... "would normal people be looking for male lovers..." I paraphrasing like a mad man, but this is what they said. Point is their case had no motive, no weapon, and a controversial way of death....but they won!! Scott's in the same boat, there are likely going to be people on the jury who want Peterson to prove he didn't do it, and use his "strange" behavior to do it.

I haven't been following the case that closely, but it seems a great deal of the prosecution's case is "Why would he cheat on his attractive, pregnant wife?"

An attorney being interviewed on the case on television a few days ago said the defense is trying to prove Scott innocent. It is a very unusual defense, we were told; but if the baby that was found with his wife was full term, (and it appears to have been delivered underwater) then his wife had to have been alive for at least two months after she was reported missing.

On the crawl on CNN a few days ago, the prosecution was claiming that he had been using the wrong bait and the wrong anchor to be fishing. If that were sufficient evidence to convict him, I might be charged with murder. I've never found the right bait to get the fish to bite, and I didn't know there was such a thing as a "fishing anchor."

So we are back to "Why would he cheat on his attractive, pregnant wife?" Perhaps because he doesn't find a pregnant woman attractive. Perhaps all was not blue skies and rose gardens within the marriage. Perhaps he was an outright cad? Male humans have a long history of being susceptible to straying when a strange female is available. Fifty percent of marriages these days end in divorce. An affair hardly seems motive for murder.

The Constitution calls for a person to be tried by a jury of his peers, not by the press or public opinion. We have a long history of innocent until proven guilty, and if I'm not the judge, the prosecutor, or a member of the jury; I have to believe that I am more bound by the jury's decision than the defendant. The judge or the prosecutor may have an informed opinion. A convicted defendant may have the right to appeal. The jury found O.J. was not guilty, and I don't care what the late show hosts feel about that decision; as John Q. Public I have to accept that verdict. If Scott Peterson is found not guilty, I wish him luck in getting on with his life. It will be an uphill battle.

Is there any way the prosicution can get a conviction on this guy?

I watched a news program some time back that delved a little deeper into the Scott Peterson case. It seems he hooked up with a "matchmaker" to set him up. This matchmaker says he talked pretty graphically about sex. She introduced him to Amber Frey. Then she learned he was married, and confronted him. He denied it, gave some sob story about how his wife had died. It wasn’t until the media coverage of Laci’s disappearance that the matchmaker put 2 and 2 together and came up with 4. Source

There are reports that Amber Frey isn’t the only one he was fooling around with. And throughout all this, Peterson has denied he had any affair. There’s something really weird about someone who goes to such elaborate lengths just to "get a little" outside his marriage. Maybe it was the feeling of power and control he got out of conning people? I really think that is the most likely reason for everything.

I think it’s revealing that this guy radically changed his appearance, withdrew a large amount of money, and was in San Diego when he was finally arrested. If that wasn’t a guilty man making plans to flee, I got a white Bronco I’ll sell ya. I think he’s guilty as sin, and a very cold, scary individual to boot. A sociopath’s characteristics are:

I think that describes Scott Peterson to a T. As to what the prosecution can do to convict him…who knows-I just hope they do. This trial has been so screwed up from the get-go, I’m surprised the judge hasn’t declared a mistrial. The OJ case has shown us that even with incriminating evidence, the defense can use smoke and mirrors (or cutesy rhymes) quite effectively to pull the wool over the jury's collective eyes.

Edited to add: Curmudgeon, the fetus was "delivered" spontaneously postmortem-a morbid phenomenon that was covered quite extensively even before the trial.

Daffygrl

Hold up, I'm thinking about checking out this white Bronco of yours.
So He changed his appearance, which doesn't really seem like a big deal to me. The public opinion on Scott Peterson seemed to be going against him after a couple of weeks. I can only imagined how uncomfortable fame is when that fame is the result of people starting to believe you murdered your wife. I would imagine it makes perfect sense in changing your appearance for the general public to avoid some awkward encounters.
But whatever the reason, let us suppose that all these coincidences before his capture was a sign that they caught a fleeing man. Here he is with a different look, money, close to mexico. But right before he makes his great get away miles from the border what does Scott do?? Scott says... I think I'll go play a game of golf. Is this the actions of a guilty man on the run?? How's that Bronco driving?? I'm going to jet across the border, but not before I have one last Tee-off in the United States.

Second thing.... The Affair
I believe Chris Rock said it best.... "Men are as faithful as their options" This may be sad to hear, but I have found it to be very true through close friends. IT doesn't matter how pretty one's wife is. Prime example, Eric Benet, the man married to Halle Berry, was cheating on his wife. Who is he screwing finer than Halle Berry It doesn't matter, because there is "no sex, like new sex" of course the true saying is more vulgar, but lets just leave the word at "sex." I as a man don't know why that is, but it is. Amber is ugly and Scott doesn't seem too smart, but there is nothing about him that seems a sociopath. He's in a lose lose situation. When he cries people calm him phony or say his conscience is getting at him. When he is calm, people say he is cold. So he sexed up the neighborhood slut, maybe the wife hadn't given him some in a while.
The fact that Amber is at the center of the prosecution's case tells us how tragic a case this is. They should have never even charged Scott Peterson. They have NO evidence that he was involved. Their motive seems weak. But all prosecutions know in truth they don't need evidence all they have to really do is get a jury dumb enough to buy the "what kind of man does...(fill in the blank) argument and they can get a conviction.

DaffyGrl, honestly, how much you selling it for??

I think he's guilty. It is very suspicious that he bought a boat shortly before his wife's death; at the time of her disappearance he was out fishing in this boat; and her body was later discovered at sea.

But I can't say I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. While there is a motive and the opportunity, there is no time of death, no witness, no weapon.... Most importantly there is no forensic evidence to tie him to the crime despite enormous efforts on the part of the police to find something.

In Scotland juries have the option of delivering a verdict of "Not Proven." Legally it has the same effect as Not Guilty, but it is generally taken as message from the jury: "we know he did it but there isn't enough proof". That about sums up my view.

Really? I find it "incredulous" that you find it "incredulous" that "anyone" thinks Scott is guilty.

I'll even set aside the bulk of the circumstantial evidence for a moment (his finances, the girlfriend, strange use of tenses regarding his wife, dyed hair+ goatee+passport+large wad 'o cash, bizarre reactions and mannerisms in interviews, etc...)

What's "incredulous" (unless Scott is being framed...and where is the evidence of that), is that a guy drives two hours (over a hundred miles) to a very specific place on the huge San Francisco Bay to go "fishing" in his new boat, his pregnant wife goes missing at the exact same time, and several months later the bodies of his (ahem..."former") wife and unborn child wash up on shore in almost the exact same place.

Is it absolute proof? No. Is it enough for this jury to convict? Time will tell. Is Scott really just a victim, a'la Harrison Ford in "The Fugitive"? I suppose it's possible.

Is it "incredulous" for "anyone" to "think" Scott Peterson is guilty? I think NOT!

I drive two hours to go fishing! Whats your point? And how would a body wash up in the same place someone went fishing two months later? The bay cant be that still. There has to be some kind of current. And if hes out fishing why would somebody say his wife is missing. Arent they married, and dont they do stuff together? Your argument doesn't make since.

uhavenoidea, I guess that's why

and why he ordered porn stations added to his satellite service 2 weeks after his wife disappeared (Rosie Palm and her five daughters must not have been good enough for him, especially after Amber dumped him). And I guess that's why he laid low from the time the bodies were found, then scarpered to his parents' place hundreds of miles away with $10K and his brother's ID?

And I guess everyone goes fishing on Christmas Eve; it's like a tradition, right?

The POINT is that all the evidence points to Scott Peterson murdering his wife.

Argonaut, I'm pretty sure he went to a marina only a few miles from his house. Can't seem to track down the article on that...

You got me but i do not know all the facts. I was really directing my questions to the guy that posted before me. But thanks for your input.

The point of debate is that everyone can participate. Knowing the facts requires doing some research to support your position. Telling someone their argument "makes no since [sic]" is not contributive. Admitting you don't know the facts weakens any opinion you might put forth. The internet makes researching subjects extremely simple. There is a great deal of information out there about the evidence against Scott Peterson. I have yet to see/read anything that would prove strong enough to exonerate him, though Geragos keeps hinting that he has some "potentially exculpatory" evidence and has delayed the trial.

As I look at the case there is still no evidence, but o.k. let's digest what you are saying.

First no blood... where did he kill her at and how?? There was no blood in the house.

Let's talk about the lake.... why would he dump her in the same place that he is using as his alibi. Why didn't they find here when they did exhaustive searches in the beginning? And I wouldn't call it "Scott being framed" if someone who may have had Laci decided to dump the body in the same lake that the whole country knew he was at.

When I call it incredulous for people to call him guilty, i don't think they should think he is innocent, but the reasons people use to call him guilty is the reason why people can't get fair trials. People tend to want to believe guilt. Back to the lake. They(the police), have know idea when the body was put in the lake. If the body was found weighted down by diver, I would be less skeptical. But for the body to float up, MONTHS after it had been broadcasted "this is the lake that scott Peterson said he was at" You wouldn't have to be an einstein scientist to figure "how 'bout we drop this body in that lake"

Weeks of this case have proved without a doubt, that Scott Peterson is guilty of doing the town slut. And I don't mean this in a general term. Miss Penthouse with braces was just that.

Outside of the affair, all I hear for evidence is rhetorical questions of "would an innocent man..... order porn after his wife goes missing" It is the extreme lack of evidence that baffles me when people call him guilty.

You don't really mean that do you? "No evidence"? It may be "circumstantial", but there is a mountain of "circumstancial evidence." As I said before,"Is it absolute proof? No. Is it enough for this jury to convict? Time will tell."



Do all murder victims bleed?



Ummmmmm. It's not a lake, it's the Pacific Ocean. The San Francisco Bay to be exact. Writhing with strong currents and any number of aquatic creatures who make a living by munching on dead animal tissues. Seems possible that a killer might feel confident that a weghted down corpse might be consumed prior to washing up on shore. You said you would be less skeptical if a weighted down body had been found (on the sea floor) by a diver. So to you it must be inconcievable that strong currents, snacking sea critters, and normal decomposition could free up the now gelatinous remains from whatever tie-down job the killer used and allow it to wash up on shore? Not possible?



Did I read that right? You wouldn'tcall that "being framed"? What would you call it? What is your definition of "being framed"?



But that's NOT what you said! You said:



You found it "incredulous" that anyone "believes" he is guilty. You may be misapplying to the rest of the entire world, a judge's general admonition to members of A JURY- (Don't discuss the case until presented to you for a verdict. Don't make up your mind until presented with both sides. Base your verdict on evidence presented/allowed in the courtroom...).

In case you were not aware, the rest of us are completely free to use our eyes and our ears and our other senses along with our experiences and everything else we've learned during our lives and to come to our own conclusions about what we finally choose to "believe" or "think" about anything.

Really, seems more like a mole hill turned into a mountain by the general population wanting to believe him guilty. A good example of circumstantial evidence is... I hear gun shots coming from the alley, I look around the corner and see a man standing over the body with the gun two feet away from him. Though I may not have seen an actual murder, what I saw would be good circumstantial evidence.

So what's this mountain of circumstantial evidence. Like you pointed out there doesn't need to be blood to be a murder.... but that would be circumstantial evidence of a murder in the house of Scott Peterson where police speculate the action took place... right. So you have no circumstantial evidence of foul play in the house. Don't you think this is important?? Probably not cause you have confused a mountain of rhetorical questions with a mountain of circumstantial evidence.
Oh, then there is the strand/strands of hair found in the boat. Would that be part of the mountain?? How likely is it that his WIFE's hair could end up on him and then in a boat?
Let's not forget stories like this, where eye witnesses had seen Laci walking the dog after Scott was gone. What about the circumstantial evidence that is exculpatory towards Scott.
Let's talk about the the biggest piece of circumstantial evidence available. Laci Body found off the shore by the BAY, I apologize for referring it to the lake. I can knock two birds with one stone here.
Scott said he was at the bay in December. He became a person of interest like mid-january. The body washed up in April. In your quest to induct reasons why Scott did it, have you ever deducted the possibility that someone else had plenty of time to place the body exactly in the same bay that the chief suspect says he was at?? The could have duped in February, they could have dumped it in March. The timeline is what makes this piece of circumstantial evidence so weak. The shorter the amount of time that passes between Scott's trip to the bay and the discovery of Laci, the stronger the circumstantial evidence is. Just like in my story, if I immediately see the scene I describe after hearing gunshots that circumstantial evidence is strong, if it is 5-10 minutes later, it become much weaker, if it is an hour later well it becomes worthless circumstantial evidence. Laci was found at a bay MONTHS after EVERYONE in America who payed attention knew that Scott was there...
Which leads me to the second bird. What is my definition of being framed? I thought about this and thought that Scott being framed is the correct way of seeing it, so you are right. Let me explain what I mean. When the word "framed" was used my mind thought of some plot to kidnap Laci and make it seem like Scott did it. I don't think this is the case. I think that someone could have killed or held Laci, see the police obsession with Scott and merely said "why not put the body where he said he was at" Is it still framing, I guess it is. But not exactly what I think of when I think of framing.
Hmmmm I find it incredulous that people claim to know what happens after someone dies, but at the same time I don't find it incredulous because I know a person can invent and manifest any sorts of scenarios withing their head. Can you understand that duality or am I just being confusing. At any rate that is how I feel about the Peterson case. I can understand that anyone can believe anything... at the same time I can't see how any one can reason out the guilt of Peterson. If they have ears and eyes, what is it that they are seeing and hearing that says..."he killed his wife." And it is not an either/or situation. You can believe in the possibility of him being guilty, without believing him guilty or innocent, which in my opinion seems the most reasonable conclusion given the mole hill of circumstantial evidence. So while I find it incredulous that anyone would believe Peterson guilty, I KNOW deep down it is all too human nature for many to think people guilty of a crime whenever a person of authority points the finger. Hence the saying..."You're making a mountain out of a mole hill", it's just the way it is.