Beth Karas

Right.

But the evidence, the circumstantial evidence could be. Well, you have to look when you look at circumstantial evidence, the jurors get to get an instruction about like if there is an interpretation of the evidence that is consistent with innocence. And another one, it says you've got to give the benefit to the defendant. You've got to go with the innocent explanation.

But the evidence, the circumstantial evidence could be. Well, you have to look when you look at circumstantial evidence, the jurors get to get an instruction about like if there is an interpretation of the evidence that is consistent with innocence. And another one, it says you've got to give the benefit to the defendant. You've got to go with the innocent explanation.

But the evidence, the circumstantial evidence could be. Well, you have to look when you look at circumstantial evidence, the jurors get to get an instruction about like if there is an interpretation of the evidence that is consistent with innocence. And another one, it says you've got to give the benefit to the defendant. You've got to go with the innocent explanation.

But when you start piling the evidence together, then you kind of like, OK, this is there's no way that tire tracks, you know, matching the car. And, you know, fingerprints, fingerprints is pretty good. He's in a place where he hasn't ever been in his life that we know of. It's not unusual to say Scott Peterson's house is full of fingerprints. That's useless evidence, right?

But when you start piling the evidence together, then you kind of like, OK, this is there's no way that tire tracks, you know, matching the car. And, you know, fingerprints, fingerprints is pretty good. He's in a place where he hasn't ever been in his life that we know of. It's not unusual to say Scott Peterson's house is full of fingerprints. That's useless evidence, right?

But when you start piling the evidence together, then you kind of like, OK, this is there's no way that tire tracks, you know, matching the car. And, you know, fingerprints, fingerprints is pretty good. He's in a place where he hasn't ever been in his life that we know of. It's not unusual to say Scott Peterson's house is full of fingerprints. That's useless evidence, right?

Hair evidence in his own house is useless evidence. But if Scott Peterson's fingerprints were found, I mean, I don't want to say he did take the boat out on the boat ramp, but. I don't even know how to speculate. You know what I'm talking about. It's like in a place where like a burglar is coming in on a window and his fingerprints are on a window at a home. He's never been in before.

Hair evidence in his own house is useless evidence. But if Scott Peterson's fingerprints were found, I mean, I don't want to say he did take the boat out on the boat ramp, but. I don't even know how to speculate. You know what I'm talking about. It's like in a place where like a burglar is coming in on a window and his fingerprints are on a window at a home. He's never been in before.

Hair evidence in his own house is useless evidence. But if Scott Peterson's fingerprints were found, I mean, I don't want to say he did take the boat out on the boat ramp, but. I don't even know how to speculate. You know what I'm talking about. It's like in a place where like a burglar is coming in on a window and his fingerprints are on a window at a home. He's never been in before.

Hello. Right. So I think even I can say that I have been misinformed about circumstantial evidence then. Right. Because I mean, I could, I argued on another podcast saying that I could see how Scott Peterson maybe could have been acquitted because it was all circumstantial. But you're right. Once you add on, like you pile it on top of one another and,

Hello. Right. So I think even I can say that I have been misinformed about circumstantial evidence then. Right. Because I mean, I could, I argued on another podcast saying that I could see how Scott Peterson maybe could have been acquitted because it was all circumstantial. But you're right. Once you add on, like you pile it on top of one another and,

Hello. Right. So I think even I can say that I have been misinformed about circumstantial evidence then. Right. Because I mean, I could, I argued on another podcast saying that I could see how Scott Peterson maybe could have been acquitted because it was all circumstantial. But you're right. Once you add on, like you pile it on top of one another and,

It's no longer circumstantial or it shouldn't be looked at as circumstantial.

It's no longer circumstantial or it shouldn't be looked at as circumstantial.

It's no longer circumstantial or it shouldn't be looked at as circumstantial.

But when you look at the sum total and all those little pieces fit together and it's like, well, wait a second. It excludes every other explanation for innocence, you know, kind of says it's got to be him. Right. So, I mean... I was at that trial. I mean, I heard that evidence in Scott's case.

But when you look at the sum total and all those little pieces fit together and it's like, well, wait a second. It excludes every other explanation for innocence, you know, kind of says it's got to be him. Right. So, I mean... I was at that trial. I mean, I heard that evidence in Scott's case.

But when you look at the sum total and all those little pieces fit together and it's like, well, wait a second. It excludes every other explanation for innocence, you know, kind of says it's got to be him. Right. So, I mean... I was at that trial. I mean, I heard that evidence in Scott's case.

And I know there's a whole new young generation of people, you're a part of that, who are doing a second look at it. And it's revisionist history, in my opinion. And his family, God bless them, they have been relentless in... fighting for Scott's freedom. They got him off death row.