As the prosecution winds down in the Scott Peterson trial, in my opinion they have produced no compelling evidence that he murdered his wife. Their star witness proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Peterson is a cad - we knew that - but no evidence of murder. Technical witnesses have had their evidence turned from certainties to maybes on cross.
Personally, I’m fairly convinced he did it, but if I were a juror I believe I would have a very strong case of the reasonable doubts. Of course I am not a juror and am not exposed to every little thing in the courtroom, but the news accounts of this trial have been quite detailed. Unless I’ve missed something crucial, the prosectution has no ‘there’ there.
Is this the type of case where Geragos should put on no defense? Why take the chance of something new coming up? Or of Peterson insisting on testifying? I think he should rest on the holes he’s already put in the prosecution and a strong closing.