Poll: Scott Peterson, Guilty or Not

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The thing that struck me about the Peterson evidence was his boat. Here's a guy who had a large expensive house, an expensive car, and an expensive lifestyle; yet he bought some little pos used john boat to go fishing in (Shortly before his wife was killed he suddenly took an interest in fishing?)? It was completely out of character for types like him who liked the best of everything whether they can afford it or not. If that boat truly was for fishing Peterson would have bought a nice, expensive fishing boat, as was his normal style.

I think the jury will find him guilty purely because he is so full of lies and because of his affair with Amber. The dude is not human, he's pure snake.

Now throw in the fact that he was caught heading towards the Mexican border, had changed his hair color and had several thousand dollars some of which was already coverted to Mexican currency.

He had been to Mexico and back already... it was not unheard of for him to be in Mexico. As far as the hair, he said that he changed his appearance to get some peace from the media. That may or may not be true... but since the prosecutation could not prove he was lying...

and Amber... Amber was the biggest joke in the world... what a loser she is. She has a history of dating married men... has two children by two separate father and has been married to neither. She had like TWO dates with Scott and all of a sudden, it was the romance of the century. And I am not fooled by the hours and hours of taped phone calls... Anyone listening to more than five minutes of that can be sure he knew he was being taped. And why is it that everyone tied to the case has a gag order, except the loudmouth Gloria Alred? She was allowed to go on teevee every night and offer inside opinion.

Again, I think he is guilty. but...
I do not think, however, that he had a fair trial... and I do not think that the state proved it's case. It is easy to build a circumstancial case against anyone for any thing if they have enough man power and money to do so.

No time, place, cause of death. No murder weapon. No motive. No physical evidence.

 

[Spamela]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I must admit surprise on the verdict - in my mind there was nowhere near enough evidence to convict in this case. I always felt he was probably guilty, but I still don't see how the prosecution could have met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

ditto.

i live about 1/2 mile from the Peterson house.

MANY local people thought he was guilty
long before the prosecutors produced much evidence
because of his infidelity & perceived arrogance.