Hell yeah the little snot was scared!!!

Lets face it our prison's aren't full of intelligent criminals. It's full of the Stupid ones.

You're right about one thing, it is circumstancial evidence. And again I will state that a PREPONDERANCE of the evidence is all that is needed.

They Do Not need Direct evidence, they don't even need a body, if the evidence they do have has enough weight to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a murder has been commited and someone is guilty.

Reading court TV documents isn't my thing. I put them up there with the A&E site and news papers. I prefer to read Law books and Journals.

Tweety you have to stop believing that the system has to have absolutes if your career goal is to be in law. There are no absolutes in justice.

Yes she was his wife, so DNA is irrelevant to this case, other than to
prove that it was Lacey and Connor. Try looking at all the other evidence, and explaining it. Like why would somebody have cement fragments on a boat. Tryin to plug a hole!! Why was he out fishin on a day even seasoned fisherman were staying in?? Where are the fish he caught?? Let me guess he's the sporting type.....To damned bad, he wasn't sporting when it came to his wife and childs lives.

The only other plausible explaination, he hired someone to kill them and then being the arrogant butt wipe that he is, shirked them for the money. So they got even by dumping the body in his alibi.

HE'S STILL GUILTY. Look up California Law/ Penal Codes on the subject. Findlaw.com

The blame does have to lie somewhere, and the most likely suspects in a disappearance and murder , are always the immediate family. Until they can be ruled out. UNEQUIVICALLY!! He wasn't!!

Oh and BTW, OJ was guilty as sin. That case got f'ed up by people playin to the camera.
That And
Money Talks.

Check your resources, throughout history, people have been buying their way out of trouble...

Sorry to sound crass, but you need to look at the whole picture. Use critical thinking when dealing in/with the law.

[mstweety]

I dont know that Scott is guity as well as I dont know that OJ was.
I feel if tere is a reason to doubt, you ogotta look harder. Yes people have baught thier wasy out of many things. Thats what we do when we pay pre-paid legal services. It legal too.
But I am from the SHOW ME STATE, I have to have hard core proof before I belive. At first I really thaught that Scott did it, bar none. I have wrestled with this. But I am just not sure now, and that leaves me with reasonable doubt. I have followed this case. I am stil undecided.
I just dont think that he acted alone if he did do it. But I stil belive that Amber did it. Maybe with Scott, maybe without.

[wannabe?too]

What'ya need it on video tape there "show me state". OJ murdered them cause the victim's blood was in his Bronco and on his socks. The ONLY reason he was found not guilty was because he is black and had an almost all black jury, and they didn't want to convict one of their favorite sons. Johnny Cochran was a very good attorney, and he was able to give the jury an excuse to aquit by casting suspicion on the police.

Your TREADING on thin ground there wannabe?too. Us Southerners dont take highly to insults about are intelligent's. :twisted:

[jims34]

the fact of the matter is that he was found not guilty. It does not matter what anyone thinks about it he can never be charged with the same offence. As for Scott Peterson they don't seem to have any evidence to find him guilty. The thing that might fry his bacon is how he acted in the days after his wife went missing. I think it is strange that the witnesses that saw Lucy walking her dog didn't have any barring on the case. If one old lady says she seen her it maybe because of her eye sight and can be dismissed but there was more then one person that saw her. So if this is the fact then how could of he killed her before leaving to go to the Bay when she was seen after that time.

[mstweety]

Reguardless of who really did something wronmg or didnt do something wrong. The facts are that OJ walked. You can theroize anyway you want to, this is a free country. ( to some point ) But Jim is right, they really dont have anything that points directly to him. His behavior was odd after the fact. But the man was scared. A lot of people thihnk rash when a situation comes up.
And wannabe... You dont ever and I will repeat this ever, put down a Southerner. I am highly educated, and highly educated. I just have a strong belife system, it is part of being SOUTHERN...
And thank you Sanchez for speaking for me when I was not here.

We all have a opinion, but unless you cn state a 100% fact its not a fact, it's opinion/therory.

Your welcome mstweety. :P

[Twilight Flyer]

About the goatee and money, he didnt have that much cash

$10,000 will buy someone a a whole lot of tequila in Mexico.

[mstweety]

Yes 10k buys a lot of tequilia! Good stuff!BTW
But 10k wont last long.
But ok it wasnt 10K it was 15K http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/112503_ctv.html

Scott Peterson is demanding prosecutors return his pickup truck and the $15,000 in cash he was carrying when he was arrested for killing his wife, Laci, and unborn son.

Now if you were in troubel for something, would your family aid you? Maybe he got this from his family and maybe it was his own. I am not clear on this.
But the police state it was a indication he was going to fell. But he was already not staying at the home, his oarents were paying the bills. ?So maybe he drew this money from the bank to keep from loosing it in case they locked the bank account down. And he did hsve clothes and things when arrested, he could have those to take to his family home to stay there.
I know it all looks bad.
But yet, why would a man kill his wife and unborn child?
He really has no motive. There is nothing pointing to anything other than he had a happy marriage.
It's a tough one to judge.
I just dont know what to think other than it's a sad case.
But I just find things hard to justify when there is no concrete evidence.
I still think this was Amber Frey's doing's and Scott could have been involved, but until that comes out, it's just my opinion/therory.
I noted to the DH a few weeks back, that I almost felt like the OJ case again, hung joury, tainted jury, and resonable doubt by lack of evidence. ?Remember the ordeal with the jouror? He was kicked off the stand. When that happened, I decided thats exctly what what his ( Scotts ) team wanted, I almost thaught we would soon see a end to this for tainted jury.
And that is what they want. Because then he casn be aquited and never charged again.
Guilty or not, I really dont know. But without hard core evidence, its hard to decide. What would happen say, he was convicted, and he went to deathrow? So then he is put in the chamber or however the state of CA does it. then after it's all over with, they come up with something that was say "overlooked" ? It has happened. Then they decide that he did not do it. Then his family has a major lawsuite. This happens all the time. Folks who are innocent are convicted of crimes that they did not commit because people seek justice in one form or another to justify that they know there is wrong doing. they just want the blame to fall somewhere and get it over with.
So what if he is wrongfully convicted?? and it comes out some time later?
Are the folks who gave him his fate going to rest easy?

and BTW thanks TF for jumping in I dont see you get i often on thee type of things!

In Law Motive is what matters!!! The who, what, where, why, and how, are the tools used to show Motive!!

Twilight Flyer you said a mouth full. $10,000.00 makes you a very wealthy greengo in Baja California.

Tweety nobodies questioning your intelligence, just your theory. You seem to want to blame Amber, without any proof what-so-ever. Show us the evidence that points to her. Remember I said EVIDENCE not THEORY.

Scott reminds me of Susan Smith. Watch his interviews, same tears!!!

If their marriage was so happy, why was he screwing Amber???

You're right OJ cannot be tried again in criminal court, but isn't it funny that he lost in civil court...........

wannabe, it had nothing to do with his skin color. That statement in itself, show's a lack of intelligence.

Someone please tell me, if Scott is so freakin' innocent, why did Lacy's family have to get a court order to prevent him from getting rid of anymore of her things while she was still just a missing person case??????????????

Seems to me, he knew she wouldn't be needing them anymore!!!! Hmmm.....How could he have known?? Speaks volumes doesn't it????

Theories are what an investigation is based on, Evidence is what the investigation moves forward on.