(My only) thought on the Scott Peterson case...

Apparently the prosecution is trying to get a conviction on the "it's not reasonable to think anyone else did it" train.

I don't like that train.

In the child's game, the rebuttal is to say "au contraire - it is reasonable to think someone else did it". Then the prosecution says "oh yah? PROVE IT! Show me who did it, if not Peterson!".

And that's where it all goes to hell. The point of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" is to define where the burden of proof lies. In particular, it is never required, for a successful defense, that defense counsel determine the actual perpetrator.

But that seems to be precisely what the Peterson prosecution's case is built on. If Peterson can't produce the actual killer, then we'll take him.

If my understanding of the strategy is anything close to correct, I can't see anything but a quick and unanimous acquittal in Peterson's near future. The cheating bastard mighta done it, but I'll be damned if I convict based on that argument.

Ok - enough tv soap opera blogging.