Scott Peterson has been found guilty of double murder, although on a lesser scale when it came to his unborn son. Now then, by definition of law, this means the prosecution should have proved its case beyond "reasonable doubt". What does this signify? That a reasonable person cannot have doubt when it comes to a person's guilt. Did the "burden of proof" work? No. The case was flimsy from the start. All that was proven was that Scott was a lying cheat whose wants and needs were the only ones which mattered. Pliers in the boat? The hair was too tiny for a clear indication of ownership. Yes, Scott did not help his case much when one followed his actions. However, grieving people do not act according to protocol. What made the difference, perhaps, is that the foreman ended up being let go before any verdict could be rendered. Why? Because this guy was both a lawyer and doctor taking copious notes. He not only understood law, but realized all angles required complete and full examination. If still found guilty, fine. Mark Geragos should be able to appeal now. Easily. That being said, however, the defense failed too, by not providing a reasonable alternative to who killed Laci and Conor.