In the absence of a corpse, how are we to know that a murder has occurred? There could be a witness to a murder and the victim is missing, and a trail of supporting forensic evidence, for example.
But in this case the body gives no evidence that the cause of death was homicide, so we must to go other evidence ... and that evidence is lacking, as I pointed out. No eyewitnesses, no evidence of a murder weapon having existed much less one that links the victim to a suspect, no crime scene, no known time or place of death, no forensic evidence that isn't compatible with common transference.
It's counter-intuitive that Scott Peterson -- who was so clumsy in his lies that even the clueless Amber Frey figured it out -- committed an otherwise perfect crime.
*sigh* If this is an example of your ability to think and reason, then I won't be buying any of your books.
Just one example, but there are many:
Person X is missing and reported as such by her husband. The husband has replaced carpeting in the bedroom, but the blood stain is still illuminated with luminol. The area of the blood stain to the volume of blood loss can be calculated to determine that anyone losing that volume of blood would be dead.
I'm going to Amazon and write a review of ALL your books, cautioning would be buyer's that you have a bad habit of NOT knowing the facts you're writing about.
She did NOT figure it out.
It provides substantial circumstantial evidence to that effect. A dead body would generally float and wash ashore within a fairly short length of time unless something was weighing it down. The state of decomposition when the bodies washed ashore would suggest that either Ms. Peterson entered the water some considerable time after death, or else that when she entered the water her body was weighed down by something substantial. While it would be vaguely conceivable that she might have died of accidental or natural causes and then had somebody decide to dispose of her body at the bottom of the bay, such a notion would stretch credulity to the breaking point.
Since the body was literally torn limb from limb (no arms, no legs, no head), I think we can safely affirm there was a murder weapon unless Scott used his bare hands. There was evidence of cover up and evidence of blood in the bedroom. Lots of it. So, murder weapon(s)...plenty of evidence. We just don't know what the weapon was.
I've heard a lot about the lack of evidence in the case, but I think that's overblown. Shades of OJ and MSM sensationalism. Makes a better story if it appears the prosecution has made a bad case. The facts are that there was certainly enough evidence for the jury to find unanimously that this man killed his wife and baby. Then made every appearance that he was going to run to boot.
After hearing about the agony of the mother's testimony tonight and feeling her pain as a mother myself, I'm going to write her a letter of sympathy. I've followed the case, and IMHO, I would have convicted, too. I think it's a great victory for right and justice, and it's about time, too. The mom suffered enough, in her own right, that I think he should face the chair just for THAT alone.