IMO, he smothered her because there was no blood evidence in the home....or very little and none of it could be tied to her death.
He had motive and he ACTED like a guilty man who was in San Diego on the telephone with his brother having a "light-hearted" conversation the day the two bodies washed ashore instead of on the phone with the Modesto police to see if the bodies were those of his wife and unborn child.
He disguised his appearance and had ample money to cross the border and "get lost".
His parents' louzy defense testimony sealed his fate. Neither was believable.
Total & absolute agreement. Peterson was NOT convicted of killing his wife since there was no evidence to that effect. He was convicted and will be sentenced to death for being a schmuck.
In the meantime, there may well be a killer out there and the police, right from the get-go, decided to exclude anyone else from their investigation of Laci's disappearance.
This is NOT justice. No way.
It sets a dangerous precedent whereby police and prosecutors can accuse anyone of anything and get a conviction.
By this standard of evidence we can convict and execute *witches*.
That you, greta?
And I have even stronger evidence that OJ did it and started exibiting his guilt to others as soon as his plane landed in Chicago. J. Neil Schulman is a crock.
I didn't see Jimmy Hoffa disappear either, so I guess he's not missing... (You should put this all in a memo and send it to Dan Rather.)
There was not enough evidence to convict, either circumstantial or tangible.
The trial was prosecuted at a emotional level. By that I mean that someone must have done it, and that someone is most likely the liar husband.
Most likely is not grounds to convict or more importantly to execute for a crime supposedly committed.
The trial was a sham. The jury was tainted and manipulated through a series of changes, and the decision should be vacated and a new trial commenced in a different jurisdiction.
I would also suggest a new defense lawyer, as this one has lost what little respect he once had.
Whether or not Peterson is guilty was not ever at issue in this trial. From the beginning, it was a struggle to prove he was innocent, and that is not the way our justice system is supposed to work.
Also,I continue to see errors in the purported evidence like anchors that were never found and never proved to be made in the quantities purported. These are all suppositions and not evidence.
The location of the bodies being the smoking gun can be easily overcome by the fact that the bay was announced as the probable location only days after her disappearance.
If I were going to dispose of a body, that is precisely where I would have placed it it implicate Peterson.
There are far more questions than answers created by this trial. Knowing what I know about it, I could not have arrived at a guilty verdict. I could not have said he was innocent, but that is not the point of a trial where guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
I wasn't at the trial. But I would think that a peson totally innocent would be a bit upset, or shaken if a jury convicted him of murder. Apparently he was cool as a cucumber.
I only cross-posted my article a few hours ago, so you'll forgive me if I didn't join the discussion instantly.
In general, I cross-post my articles published on the web to Free Republic because I have lots of friends who read here.
Moving to several of the comments in specific:
First, it was Hollywood Investigator who published the link to my book. I simply copied the HTML which included that link.
Second, this is my first article for that publisher. I didn't write the article about n-acetyl-carnosine eyedrops. My mother and I were interviewed in one of their articles, describing my mother's use of them.
Third, there are repeated references in the comments to Laci Peterson having been weighted down by anchors. No anchor attached to her body was ever offered as evidence, nor were any cement anchors recovered from the bay where her body was found ever entered into evidence. Laci Peterson's body having been weighted down by anchors of the type Scott Peterson made was simply more prosecution speculation without any evidentiary foundation whatsoever.
Fourth, while I have more than one residence, the state in which I vote, register my car, own land with a house, have my driver's license, and operate my business isn't California but Nevada.
The point of my article isn't my personal opinion as to whether Scott Peterson murdered his wife and unnborn son. My point is that when inflamed prejudice replaces reason in criminal trials, the system is broken and criminal justice appropriate to a free and civilized society is replaced with the law of talon.
Those of you willing to abandon that for the momentary rush of seeing a nasty man burned at the stake are not celebrating American principles. You're celebrating Soviet, Nazi, and Taliban-style "justice."
If Scott didn't commit this crime, he sure went out of his way to make himself look guilty.
If he was framed, whoever framed him owes Scott a lot of thanks, for assisting him.
Maybe Scott should have been found innocent and released, so that he can join forces with O.J. Simpson as he scours the golf courses of America, searching for the real killer. As a twosome they would have two heads and four eyes, the better to search the rough, the sand traps and ninteenth holes, in pursuit of the "real" killers.
Having read one side of the OJ case (Bugliosi's) I would be curious about something regarding OJ and would wonder how you would respond to it. Specifically: During OJ's initial interview with the police at Parker Center, after his attorney left, Bugliosi stated that OJ said the blood on the Bronco was his ( 'I bleed a lot, cut easily and such' or similar words). Bugliosi stated he could have convicted OJ on that basis alone.
Given the above, how would you content that OJ would be innocent?
I have some ideas on who actually committed this crime:
CIA guys on the grassy knoll
Devil worshippers in a bar-b-q sauce drenched van
L*wr*nc* O'D*nn*ll (in a rage about SwiftVets)
The person or persons that OJ has been tracking down these many years (has he found them yet?)
No, you don't.
Which, of course, makes your entire article bogus.
Before you waste bandwidth here,
you ought to READ the law regarding
what constitutes a murder.
Your entire rant is based on a false premise.
Right from the start, your argument is inconsistent with reality. Plenty of murderers have been convicted though their victims' bodies had never been found.
Want a big laugh? Read this tripe!
But to be perfectly honest...I could not hardly care less...about the trial. Although I certainly wonder about the preoccupation with this particular crime.
My point I guess is there are thousands of murders in this country...that get hardly any pub. Why in the world did the MSM focus on this one....I'll never really know.