The Lacy Peterson Case So Far...

[Darth Buddha]

Well, they keep playing tape after tape.

They've established that he is a cad. They've established that he is a liar. They've established that he didn't really take Lacy's death very hard.

If they really hd the goods on him, I don't think they'd spend so much time painting him as a shmuck.

BUT...

None of those make him a murderer. I know a lot of cads, I know a lot of liars. I even know guys who have lost their wives and remarried inside of a year.

If this is the best they've got, do you think the prosecution has met its burden?

NOT DID HE DO IT, BUT HAVE THE PROSECUTORS PROVEN IT?

[NYPinTA]

I haven't been following it enough to say. :shrug:
Would really suck if he did and got away with it though...

[BrowderChick]

In my opinion, I think he did do it but I need more evidence. I stopped following the case because to me its getting drawn out. They keep repeating it over and over and over again. When something new comes up maybe I will watch it again. :dunno:

[AgentSun]

i agree. i think he did it, but i need evidence. apparently the US court of law can't convict people for being cads.

[BlackThorn]

apparently the US court of law can't convict people for being cads.

That's a shame. :ewink:

[AgentSun]

quite a shame.

[DRD2001]

Reasonable doubt is the issue for Scott Peterson. If they can get just one unflinchable juror to have doubt, they'll win. That is how OJ was found not guilty. And EVERYONE thought he did it too.

I think he is guilty, but I would want to see a smoking gun or some hard forensic evidence.

[sny]

I have to admit I pretty much quit following this thing around the time his mistress appeared on the stand to avoid publicized-trial fatigue and because as a non-juror, I don't have to listen to it, so why get myself all worked up over it? I lean toward guilty, in my mind, given what I've heard, but then again, I thought Richard Jewell looked awfully guilty of the bombing in Atlanta at one point, and well, quite a few people were apparently wrong about that one... I haven't looked at the evidence with the kind of eye I would if I were a juror, for sure.

I'm not sure I could ever be really objective about Scott. This really is one of the few times I wish being a cad were against the law, if half of what I've caught about him (despite my best efforts to the contrary) is true. It's hard to give a guy any benefit of the doubt, reasonable or otherwise, when he seems that big a liar, murderer or no murderer.

For argument's sake, if he were proven completely innocent, without any doubt at all, of having been involved in Laci's murder... it's not so much the fact that he doesn't seem to have taken the death of his wife hard that bothers me... it's the fact that he didn't take the death of his nearly-born child that hard, either. Even if he didn't feel he loved his wife any more, hated her guts and wanted a divorce as soon as possilbe, it's hard to imagine seeming so callous in the wake of losing a child that close to the due date. I can understand a father being less affected, perhaps, if it were early in the pregnancy and not as tangible, but this was a pregnant woman in her eighth month, best I recall. They may not convict him of murder in a court of law, but they have pretty much convicted him of not being much of a human being in the court of public opinion, I guess.

Just curious, did Frey's testimony hold up decently, or did Peterson's lawyers pick it apart? If it held up, that would seem pretty damning. Contrasting Peterson's attitude with Frey's little "Oh, he carried my young daughter while we hiked and said he wanted to plan a future with me... blah blah blah" jazz makes him sound a tad unbalanced in the head. Most of the testimony here, http://keyetv.com/topstories/topstories_story_223115707.html , particularly about Frey's daughter, gives me a fantastic case of the oogies if it's true. And the fact that he didn't even stop pursuing Frey during the search for Laci. If he's not a murderer, he's certainly a world class cad. Or psychopathic. I can't quite make up my mind. I'm still thoroughly boggled by the fact that I learned during the initial media coverage of this case that the leading cause of death of pregnant women is domestic violence. That just seems incomprehensible. That there are so many cases that don't get national attention like this...

Sorry, I've wandered a bit there, but I'm wondering a bit, too... is anyone really following this trial with held breath? I keep reading news articles that call it "captivating", but I don't really see anyone owning up to watching a lot of the coverage. I'm beginning to think the media just wishes it were getting OJ-scale ratings.

[LT Garrix]

You forgot "I could care less." ;)

[VBKatLou]

I think that quite a bit of physical evidence has been presented, it just didn't receive the media attention that the tapes did. Nothing's more tittlating than conversations with a mistress.

I have to admit that I'm not following the trial that closely. I check out the highlights occasionally, but only if there's a link on the front page of the the cbs, cnn news sites.

[witchdoctor]

As of today, I still am not interested in following the case. Let it play out in court, where it belongs, and not the media. I have real things to worry about.

[Boron]

I tend to think he did it, but I have heard nothing that absolutely ties him to the murder. All the evidence I have heard POINTS to Peterson being guilty, but there is nothing to prove it beyond a doubt. However, I DO think he will be convicted.

As others have said, He was just too cool about his pregnant wife's disappearance, and the loss of his unborn son. If I were in that position, I would be frantic. This guy just went about his business, including chasing a mistress. He has motive, and opportunity, but nothing else.

I can't help but think that anyone that blase' about a wife and child being murdered, knows something about it.