(NewsNation Now) — A former detective who worked on the Scott Peterson case says he has “not one doubt” that Peterson is guilty of murdering his wife and unborn child in 2002.

“I haven’t had a doubt since the jury came back,” Jon Buehler said on “NewsNation Prime.” “I didn’t have a doubt before the jury came back. When we put the case together, it was put together like most premeditated murder investigations are, as a circumstantial case, because premeditated murder doesn’t usually provide you the luxury of a witness or a videotape.”

Buehler said they eliminated every other possible scenario.

“You have to ignore an enormous mountain of circumstantial evidence to believe that Scott didn’t do this,” Buehler said.

Peterson was resentenced to life without parole Wednesday. The California Supreme Court ruled a year ago that Peterson’s jury was improperly screened for bias against the death penalty. Stanislaus County District Attorney Birgit Fladager, who rose to fame as one of three prosecutors in Peterson’s trial, opted this time to settle for life without parole.

“I don’t have any doubt on the on the fairness of the trial,” Buehler said.

Peterson’s attorney, Pat Harris, said his client has shown no remorse because he’s not guilty. He said, as he has in the past, that the defense can now prove that burglars were nearby on the day his wife Laci disappeared.

“There was a half million-dollar reward leading to the return of Laci.” Buehler said. “To think that more than one person could be involved in this and they wouldn’t turn on each other for that amount of money, that’s another thing that kind of strains my imagination a little bit.”

Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo is now considering if the trial was prejudiced by juror misconduct. She plans about a weeklong hearing from Feb. 25 through March 4 to hear defense claims that the woman known as Juror 7 falsely answered questions during the selection process.

Massullo will have 90 days after next year’s hearing to decide if Peterson should get a new trial.

Buehler hopes if there is a new trial, that the jury reaches the same verdict as it did before.

“If the jury sees it through common sense, and they compare the absurdity of the fact that somebody else could have done this, I think they’d come to the right verdict,” Buehler said. “But again, you just really never can read a jury on that.”