Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it can't be proven 100%, he shouldn't be found guilty, is the thing. That's our court standard - beyond a reasonable doubt.
I VERY much hope he gets a new trial, because I want to hear the real truth, whatever it is. What was paraded out in front of the jurors the first time was NOT the whole truth.
They need to admit the two burglars were out in front of Laci's house during the time frame she went missing, and explain why the Daughter in Law of the man in the tan van had a watch identical to Laci's missing heirloom watch. I don't need to hear days and days of his phone conversations with Amber. That's not pertinent, once you learn he's having an extramarital affair. We get it. He was having an affair, and keeping it on the down low.
I don't know whether he's guilty or not - but the US justice system can do better than that circus trial he got before.
He was literally hiding in the house down the street from my Mom. Who hides if they aren't guilty. This guy was a ***.
He was literally hiding in the house down the street from my Mom. Who hides if they aren't guilty. This guy was a ***.
I know right? Everything about this guy was shady. And the stash he had in his car when he was arrested? If that doesn't scream, "I'm gettin' the heck out of here before they catch me," I don't know what does.
He decided to go fishing in a lake far from their home on that stormy windy day. The same lake her body was found in.
I'm not a lawyer....
Is this another case of "California?"
His location that day was all over the news. He was the number one suspect in the news as well. If it wasn’t Scott who killed her, what a better place to dump her body than the place her husband had been fishing that day to further implicate him and draw suspicion away from themselves.
I agree. A number of us were scratching our head on that one. Why didn't he just go fishing at Lake Tullock? It's a good spot, less than an hour outside Modesto. Why all the way over to the bay area?
I agree. A number of us were scratching our head on that one. Why didn't he just go fishing at Lake Tullock? It's a good spot, less than an hour outside Modesto. Why all the way over to the bay area?
The same reasons people will drive past hundreds of great hiking trails to get to a specific trail.
The same reasons people will drive past hundreds of great hiking trails to get to a specific trail.
For a change of scenery ?
Of course, if you're just out to spend time in nature and see something new. Not when you're trying to hide something. His thinking could (speculation on my part since I can't read minds) have been that salt water and predatory fish could destroy the evidence faster than a fresh water lake.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
