First, I like your tagline.
I'm not arguing merely that there was reasonable doubt in the Scott Peterson trial and that the prosecution failed to meet its burden. I'm arguing a more basic threshhold that was never met: there was lack of an evidentiary foundation for the murder charge ever to have been filed. Any judge or grand jury not prejudiced by the media-induced lynch-mob mentality against Scott Peterson -- solely because of his lousy character and lack of credibility, not because there was actual evidence he committed a murder -- should have thrown the case out at the point when the prosecution brought them a case without an ME's finding of a cause of death much less a known method of homicide, no eyewitnesses to either crime or threats, no crime scene, no compelling evidence of planning or conspiracy, no murder weapon, no trace evidence not explainable by common transference.
We are done..The reasonable conclusion of the coroner was homicide...How she was killed, where she was killed and when she was killed could be implied by the evidence...but did not need to be proved by the prosecution..
You are speaking from a bias yourself..and yet accuse others.
I'm now replying to questions I've already answered in my original article and follow-up posts so I'm done defending my article in this thread.
I usually don't join in discussions of my articles to begin with but I was accused of being a lurker.
Talk amongst yourselves. :-)
Criminy. Just because YOU repeat it, doesn't make it so.
Please answer ONE question:
Did YOU read ALL of the transcripts regarding this case?
Do you have a retention problem, or do you just refuse to acknowledge facts?
You don't need a BODY, you don't need an eyewitness, and you don't need a weapon or a motive to prove a person guilty of murder.
Your lack of knowledge of the law and this case makes me wonder, yet again, whether you're just here to promote your sagging book sales.