1) Did Peterson kill his wife and child?
2) Does he deserve the death penalty?

I am willing to accept that the case against Peterson was not the strongest case. It is possable that he didn't do it. All the evidence against him WAS circumstancial. However, if it looks like a fish, smells like a fish then it is most likely a fish!

I don't think the arguement is about whether he deserves the death penalty or not. It is about should he have been convicted or not. Once convicted, I don't think there is any other punishment that fits, in light of the horrific nature of the murders. Any other sentence would have devalued the those two lives.

Now saying that, I can say that only Scott Peterson and Almighty God know for sure who killed Lacey and the baby. If Scott is indeed innocent of these two murders, I pray that new evidence comes to light through the appeal process.

As for Robert Blake, well that's another arguement altogether.