Scott Peterson: Guilty or Innocent?

So what do DU'ers think? Personally, I really dont' know. He seems like a complete asshold and if there's a hell, he should rot in it for first cheating on his wife, then apparently telling his mistress that his wife was *dead* (before the murder) to cover up his association. Apparently, he also called his lover on the day of a memorial vigil for Laci Peterson.

Even so, does that prove he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt? The evidence does seem very circumstantial to me. So I don't know what to think.

Any thoughts?

ON EDIT: Geez guys, I was just curious what people thought about the case if they were interested. I agree that the media has spent way too much time on this story to the detriment of other more pressing world issues, but I am somewhat interested b/c I enjoy murder mysteries and I was just curious what some others had to say about it. If you don't care, don't get all worked up about it, just don't reply.

I think other issues deserve media attention more than this one.

Though I do think kobe is 100% innocent.

until proven guilty.

It wouldn't even be mentioned

Murderer? Not so sure...

The evidence seems less 'solid' than the prosecution led us to believe, initially, but my 'gut' says "Guilty". I'm glad I'm not on the jury.

:shrug:

Guilty of being a contrived media distraction, maybe. Pro-lifers are on the edge of their seats about this, since he allegedly killed someone that hadn't been born yet.

He's guilty...but should be let off as message to prosecutors everywhere....

That's up to the jury.


It would be unfair to speculate.

I think that the prosecution isn't doing that good of a job so far.
This case reminds me of the O.J. trial. It appears that there is no one else that could've done it but Scott or O.J. for that matter but the prosecution seems to be not up to the task yet to prove it.

not sure about being a murderer however. Let the jury decide.

What does it matter to me if some WASP from Modesto kills his wife? I think there's more important things that need to be reported on CNN.

And I think he is guilty.

Amber Fry's testimony will make a compelling case that Scott had no love for his wife. The fact that he is fishing hours away the day she disappears (day before Christmas) concurs that he didn't love her.

But then when the family is searching for her, he acts like the caring husband, mourning the spouse.

Yes the testimony is circumstancial but it is a strong motive.

of course, people deal with grief in different ways. Myself, if it had been my wife who was abducted by a "satanic cult", I would be doing everything in my power to find her. Others would hit the golf links, order pay-per-view porno, dye their hair orange, drain the bank account and run for the border. Like I said, people deal with grief differently.