Let's not forget that he had an affair and lied about it. Then, after the affair was verified, he said he had told his wife and they were working through it but her friends have all said she would have told them and she didn't, suggesting that she didn't know......




Since when do people "work" through these things. Ever seen a woman scorned?

 

who is Scott Peterson?

 

He's a guy from Fresno CA who killed his wife on Xmas Eve last year. Oh wait, he allegedly killed his wife. Whew, wouldn't want to open myself up to legal action by libeling the guy!

 

Dont make too many assumptions here. If you cheated on your wife and had a family and she wanted to work it out and NOT get divorced , do you really think she would blab that to all her girlfriends?

Dont get me wrong I do think he PROBABLY is guilty, but all we have to go on is what the media tell us and they obviously think he is guilty.

 

I think it's Modesto, def. not Fresno, where they lived.
If he's innocent, I feel sorry for him cause he will never live it down.
If he's guilty may a thousand fleas infest his armpits and his d**k fall off, and THEN die.

 

Gary Condit moves back to Modesto and another pregnant woman shows up dead.... am I the only who sees the connection there? Talk about circumstancial evidence... :-D

 

You're right Morris. I just put down the first "no" that came to mind .

 

One thing to remember also is that he might have taken a lie detector test and failed. In murder cases the prime suspect is given an option to take the test. Most criminals think they can beat the test therefore eliminating them as a suspect. The fact that polygraph tests are not admissable in court favor the criminals because they have a shot of beating the test and have nothing to lose because it can't be used in court if they lose. My guess is that he failed the test and that was reasoning for authorities to monitor his every moves.

Even though the evidence aren't concrete(no pun intented) they do make him a more credible suspect.

Here are the some of the evidence working against him.

1. Went fishing on X-mas eve
2. No signs that he actually fished(we know he was there at the marina)
3. Fisrt thing he did was wash his clothes when he got home from the fishing trip.
4. traces of concrete in the boat and home(he can not explain the use of)
5. traces of blood in the truck
6. bleached hair and goatee, brother's id, next to Mexico,
7. affair that nobody knew about except him and the mistress.
8. His attempts to sell the property before the bodies were found.
9. Where the bodies were found.


Anyone that watches "The new detectives" and "FBI Files" on either TLC or Discovery Channel knows that if there is one type of evidence that cannot be disputed is forensic evidence. Unless the murderer is really lucky or knows enough about covering up forensic evidence that person will eventually be brought to justice.

Modesto police did mention that there is hard evidence against Scott Peterson so we'll have to wait and see.

 

i wonder if Dr. Henry Lee will be called in to help...

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TTurboZX66
[B]Anyone that watches