posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 02:01 AM
I read all of your comments with interest. There are a few points that I would like to make. First off, having been the victim of being blamed for a
crime that I never committed, and having to go through what I did to prove my innocence, I seldom ever have taken to presuming someone was guilty just
because they were accused of the crime. Of course if someone is caught red handed, then that is another story.
In the case of Scott Peterson, i have maintained all along that he wasn't guilty. I felt from nearly the very beginning he was tried by the media,
and found guilty before a trial was even held. Granted he may be a scumbag, but that does not make him a murderer.
I have followed the case from the beginning, and I found some very strange instances in which, while the evidence did not fit the portrayal, the media
rode it out like it was the gospel. More importantly, the evidence that has been presented in court has been at the very best circumstantial.
Detectives have admitted on the stand that there is little, if anything to tie Scott Peterson to the murder. There is in fact no evidence that Lacy
was killed in their home, as some have claimed. There is only one hair that was found on a pair of pliers that has even been linked to her, and that
could have gotten there in many ways.
The theory that Scott took the body to the boat in the back of his pickup using a large toolbox has no evidence to back it up, because there was
nothing found in the toolbox.
The theory the Scott used concrete anchors to tie the body down was based on some white spots on a trailer that do not follow the shape of the said
anchors, and after an intensive search of the bay there were none of the said anchors found.
After much to do was made about stains in the pickup, and they were examined, and samples sent to the lab, no blood was found.
Detectives have also admitted that examination of the remains of Lacy and Connor found no DNA evidence to tie Scott with the disposal of the bodies.
It has further been shown that one of the detectives involved in the case lied on the stand about supposed evidence that he presented. Moreover, on
more than one occasion it has been shown that the prosecution failed to provide the defense with exculpatory evidence that would tend to show that
Scott was not guilty on more than one occasion.
Something I also found interesting. was that detectives have admitted that many or most of the possible suspects were never really pursued, and
instead they zeroed in on Scott, when in fact had logic prevailed, other suspects would have been pursued. This included some, who were never even
questioned and others, whose alibis and statements were never affirmed.
I personally believe that the murderer is still at large, who it might be I would not chance to guess, but nothing I have seen nor heard leads me to
believe that it was Scott Peterson. While it may have been shown that Scott Petersen was a less than honorable individual, at this point were I a
juror, I would have to find Scott Peterson not guilty.
[edit on 8/19/2004 by Renegade Rivers]