Strangely, I seem to be following this more than anyone I'm in contact with.

 If you've heard the latest, you should be disgusted at the wild-ass prosecutors.

 Mandatory Disclaimer:
 I do not hate women.
 I do not think women should be murdered.
 I do not think men should be able to murder their wives.
 I do not think I should have to mention this each time, but if I don't,
 I'll get the weirdest mail making the most assinine accusations.
 If Scott is proven guilty, he deserves what's coming - agreed?

The "Hang the bastard" crowd says the state has a good, solid case to execute him because:
He couldn't say what type of fish he was trying to catch that fateful day.
He bought a boat and didn't tell his Dad.
He said he was going to play golf, but went fishing, instead.
He said she was wearing "X" last time he saw her, and she floated up wearing "Y."
He told his "goomah" that he was a widower before Laci's body was found.
He sold her car a few weeks or months after she disappeared.
He dyed his hair and used his mother's maiden name to buy a $3500 car for cash.
He was supposed to pick up a gift basket of some kind that day - and didn't.
They found a strand of hair that might have been Laci's.
Three times, he drove to the ocean and stared at the water while detectives followed him.
Her body washed up three miles from where he said he was fishing, but millions of people
    have access to that bay. If Scott is smart enough to kill her without them finding a weapon
    or a crime scene or a cause of death with no witnesses and no forensics, why would he be
    stupid enough to place himself near the bay where she was found?.

 This certainly was a murder, but does anyone see any evidence Scott did it?
 If I left something out, it wasn't intentional.

 Instead of finding a smoking gun, these cops can't even find a butter knife.

  back to

Privacy Policy
. .