Quote:
|
Originally Posted by innerSpaceman
Both. I don't believe the case against him was proven at all - with the priviso that I was certainly not in the court room every day. It was all circumstantial evidence - - which is fine, but I found it rather flimsy and prejudicial. The only physical evidence was a hair of his wife found on his boat. Um, yeah, they were married. Her hair should be everywhere he went. I think the jury succumbed to the same sentiment that struck most of America, namely, that he must be guilty because he's a lying, cheating scumbag.
|
I do think that he killed Laci. However, I do NOT think that the prosecution proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. When the prosecution's case is based entirely on circumstancial evidence, the coincidences have to add up a little better than what I read about the case. Here, I think the prosecution got lucky for two reasons:
1) He was a lying, cheating scumbag. Yeah, you arent supposed to convict someone based on this but juries are made of human beings.
2) Mark Geragos had no evidence showing an alternate theory -- that Peterson was "stone cold innocent". His defense was based entirely on coincidence as well. I was reading an article about that issue this morning. Usually, the defense has to prove that the prosection has not made its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not have to try and show anything beyond that. However, Geragos made it a point that he was going to "prove" an alternate theory or Laci's death... which was never really "proven". That may have been in the jury's mind as well.