# Scott Peterson: Innocent or guilty **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 23, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-innocent-or-guilty/565194 "2010-12-23T17:21:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-innocent-or-guilty/565194/41 "2013-01-05T19:31:39Z")
> [@mrfutbol](#): > > The best and most accurate piece of circumstantial evidence seems to be DNA, to begin putting the pieces of the circumstantial case-puzzle together. Video cameras showing someone in the commission of a crime, and pictures taken of involved subjects may be other strong pieces of proof that they committed a crime. DNA may be seen as “direct evidence” that someone committed the alleged crimes, as opposed to indirect evidence. > > DNA prints can match up the alleged perpetrator(s), and to his or her family members. However, circumstantial evidence other than (DNA) may not be enough to convict someone beyond reasonable doubt. According to a project that investigates circumstantial evidence lock ups, it has found hundreds of people locked up based on flawed circumstantial evidence. Juries have to be convinced that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt to convict. In order to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt or “a shadow of the doubt,” as it used to be called in the past, they have to have solid and physical evidence that the alleged perpetrator committed the crime(s) he or she is accused of. > > So circumstantial evidence that someone happens to be at a crime scene or someone says that he or she “saw another person do something” is just not enough solid evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict someone. Are you stating this as an opinion? It certainly isn’t the way the law works today. Many people are convicted with no DNA, direct physical evidence, or witness testimony. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2013, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-innocent-or-guilty/565194/42 "2013-01-05T20:40:04Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Am I missing something? The guy was convicted. Uh, yeah, that’s my point: if the State wasn’t able to prove its case against Casey Anthony, I don’t see how they could have against Peterson. The case against Casey was a lot stronger, and she walked. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2013, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-innocent-or-guilty/565194/43 "2013-01-05T21:06:39Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Uh, yeah, that’s my point: if the State wasn’t able to prove its case against Casey Anthony, I don’t see how they could have against Peterson. The case against Casey was a lot stronger, and she walked. Agreed. Peterson was convicted because he was cheating on his pregnant wife. If he hadn’t been doing that, he would have walked. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2013, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-innocent-or-guilty/565194/44 "2013-01-05T21:12:38Z")
I hope this isn’t too much of a hijack, but I see that it was just last summer that Peterson’s appeal was filed with the CA Supreme Court. Eight years after his conviction and it is a mandatory appeal. And it’s been over 6 months and the Court hasn’t ruled. Even when they do, he has state and federal habeas left. But let’s just focus on CA. Why are the courts there so dysfunctional that it takes 8 years for a mandatory appeal to even be filed? This is wrong on all levels. First, to have an effective death penalty, the state needs to put a guilty man to death before he actually dies of old age. Second, for an innocent man, a delay of so long in getting any kind of appellate review is atrocious. What’s the need out there? More court staff? More intermediate courts? ---
**Author:** ![mrfutbol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@mrfutbol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrfutbol)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2013, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-innocent-or-guilty/565194/45 "2013-01-06T18:18:41Z")
“Are you stating this as an opinion? It certainly isn’t the way the law works today. Many people are convicted with no DNA, direct physical evidence, or witness testimony.” Anything and everything within CE may be an opinion or conjecture. DNA may rank at the top within a crime investigation, however. DNA evidence may strongly point to a certain conclusion when taken into consideration with other facts, as finger prints and bloody knives, the so called “smoking guns.” However, DNA may be also circumstantial if not directly witnessed by someone when the crime was allegedly committed. When DNA is proved by expert witnesses, it seems usually sufficient to decide a case especially in the absence of any direct evidence. Old, cold cases are being frequently resolved by DNA. > [@jtgain](#): > > Are you stating this as an opinion? It certainly isn’t the way the law works today. Many people are convicted with no DNA, direct physical evidence, or witness testimony. ---
**Author:** ![mrfutbol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@mrfutbol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrfutbol)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-innocent-or-guilty/565194/46 "2013-01-06T18:23:45Z")
A pile of Circumstantial Evidence (CE) may also be a pile of junk, too. It is not whether a crime was committed by him or her, it is whether the prosecution can scientifically prove the alleged crime or not. What seems to be the biggest flaw with CE? There may be many, one is that the threshold beyond reasonable doubt seems to exist within an economic scale. The threshold seems easier for a more affluent member of society to get off and harder for a lesser member of society to do the same. What if you are innocent of the charges but the jury finds that you are guilty based on CE that you know is wrong? The real question is how can you prove your innocence? For instance, history shows that circumstantial evidence cases get very complex because of the webs of deceit spun by a wily prosecutor determined to sway a jury his or her way to gain a conviction. This has a devastating impact on the middle class and the poor who cannot afford adequate legal counsel. As the case becomes more complex the cost of defending yourself against a false allegation grows impossibly expensive (Reiglesberger, 2012). Would you like to spend your life savings trying to defend yourself against a false allegation? That is assuming you have a large savings account. Source: Riglesberger, R. (2012). A flawed and imperfect system. Retrieved January 6, 2013, from:[A Flawed and Imperfect System](http://justicedenied.org/aflawedandimperfectsystem.htm) > [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” Direct evidence, even physical evidence with scientifically incontrovertible matches can be attacked on the basis of quality and credibility. In fact, much direct evidence–particularly eyewitness testimony–is not particularly reliable, and there is no legal preference for direct evidence over circumstantial evidence; there is just the burden for the prosecution to convey the corroborative theory behind the circumstantial evidence to the jury or judges panel. > > Unless you have a video of the accused committing the crime, the vast majority of evidence in criminal cases is circumstantial, at least in terms of the primary criminal act. Pile on enough circumstantial evidence that all points to one unique theory and you achieve the threshold of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” > > Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2013, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-innocent-or-guilty/565194/47 "2013-01-06T18:49:27Z")
> [@Accidental\_Martyr](#): > > My favorite part of the Scott Peterson trial was when the defense claimed that Laci Peterson was kidnapped and murdered by a Satanic cult. > [http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/16/ctv.peterson/](http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/16/ctv.peterson/) That’s the modern day equivalent of [The Bushy Haired Stranger](http://everything2.com/title/The+Bushy+Haired+Stranger) ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-innocent-or-guilty/565194/48 "2013-01-07T02:42:14Z")
> [@Accidental\_Martyr](#): > > My favorite part of the Scott Peterson trial was when the defense claimed that Laci Peterson was kidnapped and murdered by a Satanic cult. > [http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/16/ctv.peterson/](http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/16/ctv.peterson/) The West Memphis 3 spent two decades in prison because a jury DID believe it when the prosecution made that claim. If Scott Peterson had lived in Arkanas he might have gotten a not guility. ---
**Author:** ![Accidental\_Martyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ce7236/32.png) [@Accidental\_Martyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Accidental_Martyr)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-innocent-or-guilty/565194/49 "2013-01-07T06:27:04Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > The West Memphis 3 spent two decades in prison because a jury DID believe it when the prosecution made that claim. If Scott Peterson had lived in Arkanas he might have gotten a not guility. Yes, and even though the WM3 have been released, they are still legally considered guilty. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-innocent-or-guilty/565194/50 "2013-01-07T17:30:39Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#): > > The West Memphis 3 spent two decades in prison because a jury DID believe it when the prosecution made that claim. If Scott Peterson had lived in Arkanas he might have gotten a not guility. Yes, but, the Satanic Cult was in their hands. Peterson’s lawyer had no Satanic Cult that they could call their own. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2013, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-innocent-or-guilty/565194/51 "2013-01-07T18:58:36Z")
> [@handsomeharry](#): > > Yes, but, the Satanic Cult was in their hands. Peterson’s lawyer had no Satanic Cult that they could call their own. That was poor planning on Peterson’s part. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-peterson-innocent-or-guilty/565194.md?page=2)