I think he did it. I also think his attorney was ineffective. Hell, Geragos wasn't even present when the verdict was read! I have two problems with the mess.
First, the national media wasted a lot of capital by saturating airtime with a sordid California murder. There were many other murders, including spousal homicides, which were equally tragic. I think news channels used waaaaay too much valuable air time with courtroom drama. Remember how busy the media was with Chandra Levy before 911? Maybe, if they had been doing their jobs, the country could have avoided Al Qu'eda's deadly surprise attack? I'm also tired of seeing so-called "news shows," such as "Hardball" wasting air time. Do we really need hours of political hacks pontificating about their parties' views every night? The Petersen case highlights how unfocused our media has become.
Second, though I'm sure Petersen committed the crime, I'm not certain the verdict was justified. Perhaps, the media was the 13th juror? Part of it was also the fault of Mark Geragos, whom I consider a media hound. Remember his famous shoplifting case, where his celebrity client, Winona Ryder, was convicted after a jury trial for shoplifiting? Most attorneys would have worked out that case without a trial, but that would have deprived him of public spotlight!
Still, Petersen was convicted of murder on nothing but collateral evidence! That concerns me. Remember how everyone was convinced that handyman, Richard Ricci, had murdered Elizabeth Smart? The nation was wrongly convinced that Richard Jewell was the Olympic Park bomber! How many people knew Congressman Gary Condit was involved in Chandra Levy's murder? The point is - circumstantial evidence is often misleading. Still, it would have made me sick had Scott Petersen been acquitted. Then again, maybe Lacey's real murderer still is out there, laughing at how the system made a fool of itself?
:thumbup1:
