# What's the EVIDENCE Against Scott Peterson?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-evidence-against-scott-peterson/170408
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [April 22, 2003, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-evidence-against-scott-peterson/170408 "2003-04-22T20:10:01Z")
**Posts on this page:** 5
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-evidence-against-scott-peterson/170408/41 "2003-04-25T12:25:18Z")
Monty: No, I am not privy to the oinfo that the Modesto PD has against Peterson. However, I can point out:
-so far everything that has been revealed by the media has been circumstantial
-nobody actually SAW Peterson take his wife ot SF bay
-in three months, the police have (apparently) been unable to find any evidence of peterson’sguilt
So, did he do it? Strong circumstantial evidence, but no hard evidence.
Plus, Scott Peterson’e parents feel that their son was incapable of such an act!
---
### Author:  [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-evidence-against-scott-peterson/170408/42 "2003-04-25T14:40:30Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by ralph124c \*
> Monty: No, I am not privy to the oinfo that the Modesto PD has against Peterson.
By this statement you admit that you do not have grounds to evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence the authorities have against Peterson.
> [@](#):
>
> However, I can point out:
Actually, you can’t do this credibly. See above.
> [@](#):
>
> -so far everything that has been revealed by the media has been circumstantial
Please provide proof that what the media have revealed is the entirety of the evidence the authorities have against Peterson.
> [@](#):
>
> -nobody actually SAW Peterson take his wife ot SF bay
Please provide proof that the authorities have made this determination.
> [@](#):
>
> -in three months, the police have (apparently) been unable to find any evidence of peterson’sguilt
Please provide proof that the authorities do not have any evidence. See above about the media.
> [@](#):
>
> So, did he do it? Strong circumstantial evidence,
Circumstantial evidence is still good enough in some cases to get the defendant convicted.
> [@](#):
>
> but no hard evidence.
Please provide proof that the authorities do not have any hard evidence. See again the bit about the media.
> [@](#):
>
> Plus, Scott Peterson’e [sic] parents feel that their son was incapable of such an act!
That is completely irrelevant as their feelings do not equate to an actual bar against his committing such an act. I would like to append my opinion on his parents’ recent statement regarding something they’ve asserted Laci said prior to her demise. I feel that it is a lie and that they realize it’s a lie, which is why they’ve included a built-in “defense of the comment” in the comment itself. They asserted that Laci Peterson had referred to a vehicle as a “piece of shit.” Then they said, “It’s the only time I ever heard her use a bad word.” Seems to me like ol’ Scott’s parents would do his case a bit of good if they’d shut up.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-evidence-against-scott-peterson/170408/43 "2003-04-25T16:11:42Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Monty \*
> \*\*Cheesesteak: As far as the governemnt is concerned, an acquittal does absolve you of the guilt in the sense that the jury has declared you innocent. Other than that, I’m with you. \*\*
No. The jury finds you not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury could give a speech along with the verdict, they might say, for example, “Our verdict is not guilty. We found that the accused was probably guilty, but the evidence didn’t rise to ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. So, even though we believe he probably commited the acts, we find him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Of course, they could also say, “Our verdict is not guilty. We found absolutely no credible evidence that the accused is guilty, and we believe him to be utterly innocent.”
But since juries don’t give speeches, all we hear is the verdict, and a ‘not guilty’ could mean either one of the above.
- Rick
---
### Author:  [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)
#### Post date: [April 25, 2003, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-evidence-against-scott-peterson/170408/44 "2003-04-25T22:26:44Z")
Let’s try this again, Bricker. I did use “absolve.” I probably should’ve said “exonerated.” As it stands, though, what matters–and this is the point I made–is the legal result thereof.
---
### Author:  [@Shirley\_Ujest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shirley_Ujest)
#### Post date: [April 26, 2003, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-evidence-against-scott-peterson/170408/45 "2003-04-26T02:34:44Z")
Has anyone heard anything about Peterson carrying his brother’s ID on him?
Any word from his brother or parents?
Slightly off topic, on the CNN newsticker, I saw a blurb about another pregnant woman who had disappeared in NC ( I think) whose decomposed or decapitated body had washed up somewhere. Anyone here about that?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-evidence-against-scott-peterson/170408.md?page=2)