I bet Quicktrader was all ready to string up Richard Jewel in 1996 for the Olympics bombing. (Unless he wasn't born yet back then, which is possible.) Look, this Peterson guy is almost certainly a guilty murdering asshole, but even he has the right to a fair trial. Even the mass murdering nazi Adolf Eichmann was properly tried before his execution- that's just part of being a democratic nation. Nobody here said Peterson is innocent, nobody said he should be freed, he just deserves his day in court- that's all.
He should be tried then executed. In that order! Alternatively, he could be summarily executed for such gross appearances of guilt and then tried and convicted in absentia! How is he going to get an impartial jury when 98% of the people are convinced he is guilty? BTW, Who is responsible for quiktrader? If he's not a case in favor of Roe V. Wade I don't know one.
There's only one side smegma mouth: Peterson gets a fair trial before impartial jurors. If you don't wish to accord Peterson due process there's a guy who just got run out of Baghdad for whom you might find gainful employment (if he can make it safely to Syria).
Learn what due process is. Peterson cannot be guilty until a jury gives a guilty verdict after a trial. Unfortunately, I did read your inane commentary.
He bought a life insurance policy on his wife and some have said it was without her knowledge. He bought the boat (apparently Laci never knew about it) one month before her murder. He told his GF that he was going away for the holidays. Did he plan on killing his wife ahead of time? Or did he just think it would be hard to get away from Laci over that time period? His lame alibi (late morning fishing on a choppy bay) for the day Laci disappeared. He claimed to have been worried about his wife when she didn't answer the phone when he called her from his fishing trip, yet never called again. He changed clothes and even mopped the floor prior to asking neighbors or Laci's family if they knew where she was after he got home He was seen moving a heavy tarp (hmmm, what was found on the beach the day after Laci's body washed ashore?) into his truck that morning and claims it was patio furniture; any guesses as to whether the cops were able to substantiate that claim? No one who was credible saw Laci after her mom last spoke to her on 8:30 p.m. of the 23rd. Dogs could only trace Laci's scent as far as the driveway. Scott was seen at about 11:30 a.m. by a fisherman bringing his boat in (not out) of the bay. [Not sure of the exact location where this happened nor am I sure what time he supposedly has time-stamped on his Berkeley Marina receipt. If it was after this time, he probably drove south a ways and then tried to establish his alibi with their date/stamp machine.] What did he do the rest of the day if he was already done "fishing" by then? He wasn't seen at home again until after 4:00, I believe and it was only a 1 1/2 hour drive home. That leaves 3 hours unaccounted for. Scott asked about selling their home within a week of Laci's disappearance. Scott's computer apparently had tide information on it for the area near where Laci and Conner's bodies eventually came ashore. Scott has admitted he made some home-made cement anchors, but hasn't been able to provide them to authorities (he had to explain all of the cement residue on his boat and at his workplace somehow, though). Barbara Walters has reported (I've only seen this second hand and only one time, so I'm not sure how valid it is) that Scott had a receipt for ankle weights in his home, but was unable to provide them to authorities. Laci's body came apart as if it had been weighed down by the legs and neck.
Also, he reportedly told Laci about his affair and she was understanding. Yet his GF didn't know he was married. Thats not the usual order of extramaritals. How often does a guy tell his wife before his GF? And most damning, yet most under reported: he had a girlfriend in college who disappeared never to be seen again.
aphie, Pretty interesting. I wonder what if anything they found in the truck? None of the items you cite are exactly direct evidence of a crime and can be explained away. It's also pretty stupid to buy a life insurance policy a month before you plan to murder someone. If it was that premeditated, wouldn't he have done it away from the house? Would he have lugged out the body in the daytime? On the other hand, he may just not be too clever.
There was a trial here in San Diego, made the national press. David Westerfield accused of kidnapping and killing Danielle Van Dam. They found zero physical evidence that he had been in the home of the Van Dam's. They could provide no evidence that he had actually kidnapped her. They found no murder weapon, had no proof that the poor girl had been murdered. They found some small amounts of child pornography on his computer, and they discovered that he acted strangely after her disappearance. Know what the jury convicted him on? Physical evidence. They found some of here blood on his jacket, hair and fiber in his motorhome, etc. If not for the DNA and physical evidence, the D.A. had no real case. They jury, to a man/woman said it was the blood and DNA evidence that convinced them, not the other stuff. Hard evidence, proof. You have to build a circumstantial case around some physical evidence, not try to say that circumstantial evidence is the same as hard physical evidence. There is no smoking gun that I have seen in your evidence. I don't see a real case, yet against Scott Peterson. Rumor, innuendo stuff. We don't even have a cause of death, proof that she was murdered, do we? Have you heard an autopsy report that she was murdered, and what the murder weapon was? However, that doesn't mean the D.A. doesn't have physical evidence we haven't heard yet. He is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I am waiting to see more than you listed to find him guilty of murder.
Obviously there is more evidence than what I listed -- or else they would not arrest him and try him for murder. You previously stated that someone is guilty until proven innocent, but many times throughout history people make up their own minds based on the actions of the accused. It isn't a perfect system and sometimes we are guilty of coming to a conclusion to quickly, but in this circumstance, I think it is safe to say that his actions are not one of a husband in grieving -- but of a selfish killer who just doesn't care. On a golf course golfing with his hair dyed, a goatee and his brother's ID? Not too bright.