# What are the odds that Scott Peterson will not be in jail on 6/1/05? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 31, 2004, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-scott-peterson-will-not-be-in-jail-on-6-1-05/247932 "2004-05-31T17:31:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SallyStar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a3d4f5/32.png) [@SallyStar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SallyStar)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-scott-peterson-will-not-be-in-jail-on-6-1-05/247932/1 "2004-05-31T17:31:05Z")
Odds that Scott Peterson will **not** be in jail on 6/1/05? 1 in 2, 1 in 5, 1 in 10, etc. ? ---
**Author:** ![Hal\_Briston](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9a28c/32.png) [@Hal\_Briston](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hal_Briston)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-scott-peterson-will-not-be-in-jail-on-6-1-05/247932/2 "2004-05-31T17:52:43Z")
If forced to answer this straight out, I’d guess it at 1 in 4. There’s a _huge_ presumption of guilt in this case. If the defense can get more things like [this](http://www.theomahachannel.com/news/3343108/detail.html) out there, then he’s got a shot at being aquitted. It all comes down to wether or not they were able to find a jury with no knowledge of the case whatsoever. All media coverage I’ve seen has been slanted towards “he did it”. As long as the defense can muster up some reasonable doubt, he’s got a chance. If the judge goes on a defense evidence-supression kick, he’s a gonner. ---
**Author:** ![Starguard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Starguard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starguard)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2004, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-scott-peterson-will-not-be-in-jail-on-6-1-05/247932/3 "2004-06-01T08:20:54Z")
> [@Hal Briston](#): > > If forced to answer this straight out, I’d guess it at 1 in 4. > > There’s a _huge_ presumption of guilt in this case. If the defense can get more things like [this](http://www.theomahachannel.com/news/3343108/detail.html) out there, then he’s got a shot at being aquitted. It all comes down to wether or not they were able to find a jury with no knowledge of the case whatsoever. All media coverage I’ve seen has been slanted towards “he did it”. As long as the defense can muster up some reasonable doubt, he’s got a chance. If the judge goes on a defense evidence-supression kick, he’s a gonner. Personally I think he’s gonna get aquitted… - If O.J. got away with it, why shouldn’t he\* :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2004, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-scott-peterson-will-not-be-in-jail-on-6-1-05/247932/4 "2004-06-01T11:37:54Z")
Gerigos is a sharp lawyer…his plan is to get all of the evidence against Scott thrown out (as most of it was illegally acquired). For example, the house search was conducted without a valid search warrant…and the wiretap on Scott’sphone also is questionable. Without this evidence, the case falls apart. Scott and OJ Simpson should paly a round of golf together (I here Scott is a better-than-average scratch golfer). ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-scott-peterson-will-not-be-in-jail-on-6-1-05/247932/5 "2004-06-03T00:16:04Z")
“Jury nullification” was the reason that O.J. was acquitted. That will not be a factor in this case. There seems to be some problems for the prosecution such as no weapon and no cause of death, but their case against Scott is fairly strong. I put the chances of him getting off somewhere around 1 in 16. ☹ [sup] **Sorry, girls** [/sup] ---
**Author:** ![Shirley\_Ujest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shirley\_Ujest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shirley_Ujest)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-scott-peterson-will-not-be-in-jail-on-6-1-05/247932/6 "2004-06-03T01:34:50Z")
He will get off and then join OJ on the golf courses of the world hunting for the killer of his wife. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-scott-peterson-will-not-be-in-jail-on-6-1-05/247932/7 "2004-06-03T04:45:28Z")
> [@kniz](#): > > “Jury nullification” was the reason that O.J. was acquitted. Pretty strong statement. I’ve heard tell that the prosecution case was pretty weak, all things considered. But I guess we’ll never know, without telepathy… ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-scott-peterson-will-not-be-in-jail-on-6-1-05/247932/8 "2004-06-03T12:24:37Z")
> [@Hal Briston](#): > > If forced to answer this straight out, I’d guess it at 1 in 4. > > There’s a _huge_ presumption of guilt in this case. If the defense can get more things like [this](http://www.theomahachannel.com/news/3343108/detail.html) out there, then he’s got a shot at being aquitted. It all comes down to wether or not they were able to find a jury with no knowledge of the case whatsoever. All media coverage I’ve seen has been slanted towards “he did it”. As long as the defense can muster up some reasonable doubt, he’s got a chance. If the judge goes on a defense evidence-supression kick, he’s a gonner. I think his chances are equal to a snowball’s chance in hell. I think the case against him is very flimsy, but he was so damned cocky before they arrested him. That’s the kiss of death. The jury will convict him with virtually no evidence. Jurors are not rocket scientists, and many people prefer the knee-jerk trial to the actual system employed by these United States. Sad, but probably inevitable…I think he’ll swing. At first I thought he did it, and I mostly still do. But it’s more of a vibe than anything. But as I look at the evidence against him, I get a stronger vibe that he’s the scapegoat. ---
**Author:** ![35340](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/8baadc/32.png) [@35340](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/35340)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-scott-peterson-will-not-be-in-jail-on-6-1-05/247932/9 "2004-06-03T12:43:08Z")
> [@Hal Briston](#): > > If forced to answer this straight out, I’d guess it at 1 in 4. > > There’s a _huge_ presumption of guilt in this case. If the defense can get more things like [this](http://www.theomahachannel.com/news/3343108/detail.html) out there, then he’s got a shot at being aquitted. Get out where? In the trial? If its legal and verifiable, it will be put forth in the trial. However, from the site [www.misfitting.com](http://www.misfitting.com): > [@](#): > > **(May 27th entry)** > > Some of the interesting things we learned in the People?s Opposition to Motion for Sanctions (which the Judge did not impose) and Request for Discovery filed today, include the story behind the mysterious ?sworn peace officer? who witnessed a woman he identified as Laci Peterson on December 28, 2002, being forced into a van four days after Ms. Jackson?s van sighting and Laci?s ?disappearance? (murder). No connection was established between the two vans, and the ex-cop described the woman?s clothing as different from what Laci was found wearing in April when her remains washed ashore. If anyone believes that Laci would not run or shout for help, even with a gun pointed to her head, if she were let out of the van by her abductors within the city limits of Modesto in front of obvious witnesses, then they have rocks in their heads. Nobody is going to believe this was Laci. That said, I think it will be in appeals, if he hasn’t managed to escape the country. ---
**Author:** ![Kiki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/dc4da7/32.png) [@Kiki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kiki)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-scott-peterson-will-not-be-in-jail-on-6-1-05/247932/10 "2004-06-03T18:38:57Z")
Personally, I really don’t think he did it. The prosecution, so far, doesn’t seem to have presented much evidence that he killed them. His affair(s) don’t mean he’s a killer. Not telling family about the boat right away doesn’t mean he’s a killer. Maybe if they found blood all over his clothes or in the house or in the boat I would believe it but so far, they haven’t found that. With all the forensic science we have today surely they’d be able to find trace amounts of blood _somewhere_ or on _something_ that belonged to him. There seems to be enough reasonable doubt presented already so I’m tempted to say he’ll go free. But… I read the [Jurors Profiles](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121451,00.html) and I’m not impressed. Juror #2 even admits that “although he had previously opined that Peterson was guilty, he could put that aside.” WTF! No way should that man be on the jury!! If I were on trial for murder I certainly wouldn’t want someone on my jury who already thought I was guilty!! I totally believe in “innocent until proven guilty” so until I read about more evidence presented against him I’m still going to say he’s not guilty. ---
**Author:** ![Hal\_Briston](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9a28c/32.png) [@Hal\_Briston](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hal_Briston)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-scott-peterson-will-not-be-in-jail-on-6-1-05/247932/11 "2004-06-03T19:25:26Z")
> [@Kiki](#): > > But… I read the [Jurors Profiles](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121451,00.html) and I’m not impressed. Juror #2 even admits that “although he had previously opined that Peterson was guilty, he could put that aside.” WTF! No way should that man be on the jury!! If I were on trial for murder I certainly wouldn’t want someone on my jury who already thought I was guilty!! Gaaaa! How in the happy bouncing hell did he not get kicked?? ---
**Author:** ![Abbie\_Carmichael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/49beb7/32.png) [@Abbie\_Carmichael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abbie_Carmichael)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-scott-peterson-will-not-be-in-jail-on-6-1-05/247932/12 "2004-06-03T20:09:22Z")
My favorite juror is Juror #9: _Juror 9 — A white woman in her late 30s or 40s **whose fiance was convicted of murdering a stranger in the early 1980s and was later killed in prison. She apparently married him after his trial.** She said that would not affect her views on the Peterson case. She works in packaging for a biotech company and has been married to her second husband since 1990._ Ya gotta love it. ---
**Author:** ![WolfpackJeep](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpackjeep/32/2921_2.png) [@WolfpackJeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WolfpackJeep)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-scott-peterson-will-not-be-in-jail-on-6-1-05/247932/13 "2004-06-03T20:25:05Z")
> [@Shirley Ujest](#): > > He will get off and then join OJ on the golf courses of the world hunting for the killer of his wife. Interesting you should say that…I saw an interview on the news this morning with Peterson’s mother in which she stated that Peterson is eager to find “the real killer.” ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-odds-that-scott-peterson-will-not-be-in-jail-on-6-1-05/247932/14 "2004-06-03T22:48:13Z")
> [@Kiki](#): > > Maybe if they found blood all over his clothes or in the house or in the boat I would believe it but so far, they haven’t found that. With all the forensic science we have today surely they’d be able to find trace amounts of blood _somewhere_ or on _something_ that belonged to him. I thought she was strangled.