Awaiting the Peterson verdict....

[greatdarkwing]

which will probably be a hung jury

That bastard will probably get away with it.

~Alex

[dissention]

There's not enough evidence to convict, therefore he should be acquitted. They have not proved their case.

[greatdarkwing]

Originally Posted by dissention

There's not enough evidence to convict, therefore he should be acquitted. They have not proved their case.

I dont think theres enough PHYSICAL evidence to convict. Circumstancial on the other puts him in deep trouble. But Like I said: hung jury.

~Alex

[dissention]

Originally Posted by greatdarkwing

I dont think theres enough PHYSICAL evidence to convict. Circumstancial on the other puts him in deep trouble. But Like I said: hung jury.

~Alex

I think he did it, but the circumstancial evidence is pretty weak, especially in a death penalty case.

[greatdarkwing]

Originally Posted by dissention

I think he did it, but the circumstancial evidence is pretty weak, especially in a death penalty case.

Not really, too many circumstances that put him with enough of a motive, and enough time to have killed her. For example: The whole umbrella thing is wierd. The whole reason he said he went to the warehouse was to put away the umbrellas. He said he forgot...How could he forget if he was able to put away the boat tarp WHICH WAS STORED UNDER THE UMBRELLAS. Then add the cement. Then add him fishing in the same spot she washed ashore, with expert testimoney saying the decay time matched her being in the water for as long as she was. Then add him being found at the Mexican border (something the Defense barely even touched upon cause they knew they couldn't explain it). All these circumstances point the finger DIRECTLY at Scott. And lets not mention the phone call between Scott and his mother in law where hes listening to a message from her saying they were investigating a lead in the case, and he laughs !!!!!!!!!

~Alex

[dissention]

Originally Posted by greatdarkwing

Not really, too many circumstances that put him with enough of a motive, and enough time to have killed her. For example: The whole umbrella thing is wierd. The whole reason he said he went to the warehouse was to put away the umbrellas. He said he forgot...How could he forget if he was able to put away the boat tarp WHICH WAS STORED UNDER THE UMBRELLAS. Then add the cement. Then add him fishing in the same spot she washed ashore, with expert testimoney saying the decay time matched her being in the water for as long as she was. Then add him being found at the Mexican border (something the Defense barely even touched upon cause they knew they couldn't explain it). All these circumstances point the finger DIRECTLY at Scott. And lets not mention the phone call between Scott and his mother in law where hes listening to a message from her saying they were investigating a lead in the case, and he laughs !!!!!!!!!

~Alex

What's the motive? There was no big insurance pay-off and he hadn't even known Amber Frey for a month. The prosecution hasn't shown a true motive, even though they don't have to. But it certainly would help if they did.

All of those things above can be explained away. It's not believeable to me that all those things are coincidences and I think he killed his wife and son, but is there reasonable doubt? Absolutely. The prosecution had a weak circumstantial case and a hung jury will only reinforce that. Geragos could not pull out any Twinkie defenses because he didn't have to, the prosecution did not have a smoking gun. And he will not be convicted because of it.