Sure, it is possible the murdering party observed the point where Scott fished to have the perfect "frame"...I have not ever seen any DNA evidence presented in this case or any sign of a murder weapon revealed in the media during this whole thing....the prosecution thinks Laci was strangled or smothered...which was it???...is there not a technical forensic difference? I predict an appeal will eventually overturn this conviction: there are more legal holes in it than Swiss cheese. Somebody was just in a hurry for a hanging. I don't see how any rational jury could convict without even establishing a murder weapon...who paid who under the table? The poor woman could have accidentally drowned swimming while visiting a place on the water the family commonly visited for all we know. Could her death even have been by suicide?
The circumstantial evidence of the cement residue in his boat, the fact that her body (and the baby's body) washed up in a location where Scott Peterson admitted to being. Whether there is hard evidence or not, a jury of his peers convicted him on some very strong circumstantial evidence. That is all that is required.
Troll alert!!!
Just signed up today!
This is the second two year old Peterson thread that you have resurrected.
Actually I'm mistaken. This is the fifth two year old thread about Peterson that you have resurrected.