I am not saying that Scott didnt kill her. I am saying it wasent proven. His behavior is pretty much hearsay. How do we know how he acted? Was there a camera on him 24/7?
Some aspects of his behavior are hearsay, but others are pretty concrete. Sales of tangible property, answering machine messages, etc.
To find reasonable doubt of Scott Peterson's guilt, it would seem that one must be able to discern a plausible scenario (consistent with evidence including Mr. Peterson's actions) in which one of the following is true:
Reasonable doubt does not require that one show that any particular scenario (in which the defendant is innocent) actually occurred, but it does require that such a scenario exists that is plausible; further, if a scenario might be hard to believe, it is the defense's job to provide evidence to support it, expecially if the scenario is one which--if true--would suggest that the defense would be able to produce such evidence.
I return then to my original question, rephrased: what plausible scenario can you tender, consistent with Mr. Peterson's actions and other evidence, in which he either did not know his wife was dead until her body was found by police, or in which he acquired such knowledge through some means other than killing her?
I should note, btw, that the burden on Mr. Peterson is higher than it would be in many cases because much of the evidence surrounds his own actions. In many cases based upon forensic evidence, an innocent defendant would not be expected to know e.g. how a glass bearing his fingerprints made it to the crime scene; he might be able to tender some hypotheses (e.g. if the glass matched those at a bar the defendant frequents, he might suggest that someone might have stolen it from there). Because the defense would--if innocent--be expected to be guessing at such things, the fact that a particular hypothesis doesn't pan out should not be overly damning.
In Scott Peterson's case, however, things are different. Scott Peterson should know why he did things; he shouldn't have to "guess". If he offers up a hypothesis which is later shown to be false, that suggests that Scott was hoping for an explanation that would stick, rather than offering up the truth.
Guilty knowledge, though it may be considered "circumstantial evidence", often provides stronger proof of guilt than a lot of forensic evidence. It certainly seems applicable here.