Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a woman and I don’t think he did it.

I don't see how you can reasonable conclude this. On any level whatsoever.

How? Cops have the ability to determine our innocence and guilt on a dime and plant evidence in or against our favor. The cops happened to like the burglars more than they liked Scott so Scott went to jail and they didn’t

Or maybe the cops, like everyone reasonable realized that the lying con man ready to flee to Mexico clearly did it. It wasn’t some satanic cult, or random burglars, it was the husband like it almost always is. Scott was just the type and all his behavior points toward his guilt.

Anonymous wrote:The prosecution’s only piece of physical evidence is a single hair which somehow became two hairs when Detective Brocchini and Detective Hendee opened the evidence envelope in February 2003. The chain of custody of this hair is very suspicious as is the mitochondrial DNA testing of the hair sample. It is also suspicious that Detective Brocchini kept Laci’s blue-black hairbrush in his desk drawer for some time after it was collected during the search warrant of December 26-27.

Distaso falsely states that the hair was wrapped around the pliers even though Detective Hendee who collected the hair says definitely that the hair did not wrap around the pliers.

Only piece of evidence? Ok. That’s not how any of this works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a woman and I don’t think he did it.

I don't see how you can reasonable conclude this. On any level whatsoever.

How? Cops have the ability to determine our innocence and guilt on a dime and plant evidence in or against our favor. The cops happened to like the burglars more than they liked Scott so Scott went to jail and they didn’t

Anonymous wrote:The prosecution did not put Deanna Renfro, the woman who sold the watch to the pawn shop, on as a witness because MPD ignored her connection to Laci’s disappearance. If they had investigated her thoroughly, they would have found a link between her family and that of Steven Todd, the burglar, and her family and the Medinas. Deanna Renfro was not investigated because Scott was the one and only focus of this investigation within 24 hours of Laci’s disappearance. MPD knew this watch was missing early in the investigation because Scott gave this information to Chris Boyer during the search warrant December 26-27; and Craig Grogan definitely learned about it on December 30, 2002, during his taped phone conversation with Scott. However, the only information about this very significant piece of evidence that was given to the defense in discovery was the pawn slip—no reports, no follow-up information.

Distaso makes it appear that the pawn shop people who testified were the ones involved in the transaction with Deanna Renfro and the Croton watch. They were not. They were involved in a totally separate transaction with Laci and Scott involving other jewelry that Laci had inherited from her grandmother.

Scott and Laci tried to sell the Croton watch on e-bay, but they were not successful. Distaso suggests that he’s sure they sold the watch when there is no evidence to support such a claim.

Laci inherited 2 gold watches from her grandmother. The one that she had repaired and wore to the Christmas party was recovered at the Peterson house during the search of December 26-27. Laci was not wearing that watch on the day she disappeared. She was wearing the Croton watch which was never recovered.

Why didn’t the defense call her as a witness?

Though, in his own words, he was there "to eliminate him as a suspect," Brocchini wasn't interested in pursuing the evidence that pointed away from Scott Peterson. Laci was sighted by several people in her neighborhood that morning with her dog, McKenzie. All of these witnesses were deemed not credible, despite the fact that these sightings occurred at approximately the same locations along one of Laci's known walking routes and within 1 1/2 hours of one another. Some of these witnesses were interviewed over the telephone with no follow-up to confirm or eliminate the possibility that they had seen Laci Peterson. Some reports were never investigated at all.

Some background on Allen Brocchini, one of two lead detectives assigned to investigate the Laci Peterson disappearance, gives an insight into the questionable tactics this officer is willing to use to pursue his goal. He came to Modesto in 1993 after eight years with the Alameda County Sheriff's Department. In November of 2000, he was assigned to the Crimes Against Persons Unit. He was with the Unit when he received the call to return to Modesto on Christmas Eve, 2002, to investigate the apparent disappearance of 7 1/2 months pregnant Laci Peterson. His resume would include the following cases where it appears he could be called the 'bad' cop in a good cop-bad cop partnership.

1. In the case of Somnguen Amphavannasouk, a confession was obtained when Brocchini lied to Mr. Amphavannasouk and told him he would go back to school if he confessed to the burglary and assault they were charging him with.

2. Veronica Alvarez, innocent of any crime, was threatened by Brocchini with the confiscation of her Green Card and deportation back to Mexico. Her son had been acquitted in a case where Brocchini had testified for the prosecution.

3. Michelle Owens was pushed, threatened and pursued into the hallway of a courthouse by Brocchini, after the judge in the case had ordered him to stay away from her. Michelle was a witness in the case.

4. Wendell Johnson was released, over the objections of a federal prosecutor, when Brocchini made a deal with him to produce a video tape needed in another investigation. Johnson was released and promptly disappeared,along with the tape.

5. And in the case of Darnell Green, Detective Brocchini's testimony resulted in a mistrial when the judge in the case ruled that the Detective made comments on the witness stand that might have prejudiced the jury. The defense in the Darnell Green case claimed that Brocchini made the comments blatantly and deliberately because he felt that the prosecution was losing.

Anonymous wrote:I’m a woman and I don’t think he did it.

I don't see how you can reasonable conclude this. On any level whatsoever.

The prosecution’s only piece of physical evidence is a single hair which somehow became two hairs when Detective Brocchini and Detective Hendee opened the evidence envelope in February 2003. The chain of custody of this hair is very suspicious as is the mitochondrial DNA testing of the hair sample. It is also suspicious that Detective Brocchini kept Laci’s blue-black hairbrush in his desk drawer for some time after it was collected during the search warrant of December 26-27.

Distaso falsely states that the hair was wrapped around the pliers even though Detective Hendee who collected the hair says definitely that the hair did not wrap around the pliers.

The prosecution did not put Deanna Renfro, the woman who sold the watch to the pawn shop, on as a witness because MPD ignored her connection to Laci’s disappearance. If they had investigated her thoroughly, they would have found a link between her family and that of Steven Todd, the burglar, and her family and the Medinas. Deanna Renfro was not investigated because Scott was the one and only focus of this investigation within 24 hours of Laci’s disappearance. MPD knew this watch was missing early in the investigation because Scott gave this information to Chris Boyer during the search warrant December 26-27; and Craig Grogan definitely learned about it on December 30, 2002, during his taped phone conversation with Scott. However, the only information about this very significant piece of evidence that was given to the defense in discovery was the pawn slip—no reports, no follow-up information.

Distaso makes it appear that the pawn shop people who testified were the ones involved in the transaction with Deanna Renfro and the Croton watch. They were not. They were involved in a totally separate transaction with Laci and Scott involving other jewelry that Laci had inherited from her grandmother.

Scott and Laci tried to sell the Croton watch on e-bay, but they were not successful. Distaso suggests that he’s sure they sold the watch when there is no evidence to support such a claim.

Laci inherited 2 gold watches from her grandmother. The one that she had repaired and wore to the Christmas party was recovered at the Peterson house during the search of December 26-27. Laci was not wearing that watch on the day she disappeared. She was wearing the Croton watch which was never recovered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the A&E doc, one of the things that pissed off the detectives is Scott giving one of the cops a coaster for his cup of water. He thought that was suspicious for a man who just lost his wife to do.

It’s ridiculous the stuff they came up with. They just didn’t like Scott. The entire family originally thought she was alive and maybe went into labor and was at a local hospital. Even Sharon Rocha, Lacis mom, criticized the cops and the reporters who implied foul play. The family thought Laci went into labor prematurely.

I think he's guilty, but if for some reason he didn't get a fair trial then he should get one. However, I agree with you that there are dozens of nonsensical tidbits that people cling to as a reason for his guilt.

He had one of the best legal defense teams. He got a fair trial, he just didn’t like the outcome.

He didn’t get a fair trial whatsoever. The judge was on the side of the prosecution and ignored all the defense witnesses who saw Laci arguing with men by a strange van. Many witnesses were adamant they saw Laci walking the dog that morning and she was wearing black pants not beige pants like the pants she was discovered dead in. Scott also told cops the night Laci went missing that she was wearing black pants. The missing person reports from December all said Laci was last seen wearing black maternity pants.

When she was found in the Bay in April, she was for some reason wearing beige pants which confused the officers but they made the assumption Scott probably killed her on the evening of the 23rd when Laci was wearing beige pants at her sister Amy’s hair salon. How would Scott remember what was on Martha Stewart that morning if he killed Laci the evening before? Was he just an avid Martha fan?

Laci’s sister Amy also Identified those beige pants from December 23rd at Laci’s house early on in the investigation in February before Laci’s body was found.

The pants Laci was found in were beige capris not long beige pants like the ones Amy said Laci wore. The capris track more with an April death and it implies Laci was kidnapped and gave birth.

It’s hard to believe she wore beige capris on a cold Christmas Eve walk with the dog. All the witnesses who said they saw a pregnant woman walking a golden retriever said she was wearing long black pants.

She was 5’1”. Her pants are short. They were just her pants from the 23rd.

Yes, there was probably a woman walking a dog with black pants on.

How did Scott correctly guess lemon meringue was made on the Martha Stewart show on the morning of the 24th? On their home computer, someone logged in at 8:45am and went to yahoo! shopping to look up a red scarf and sunflower umbrella stand. Scott did all this?

It would be building his alibi.

Would it also build his alibi to leave a mop and bucket in the kitchen, tell cops he went fishing and washed clothes that day?

Scott wasn’t building any alibi. He was telling the truth about the day, but he didn’t know his actions and his calm demeanor worked against him. Scott said he was thinking by staying calm and acting friendly and giving cops water he’d be helping them take / investigate Laci’s disappearance more seriously. He miscalculated.

He kept hearing from witnesses that they saw Laci walking the dog and arguing with burglars. Scott kept pushing the cops about the burglars but the cops cleared them by polygraph supposedly very early on.

Oh well. Scott could have cleared himself by polygraph but refused. Guilty is as guilty does.

Scott was advised by his father not to. He has a history of cheating and lying. I don’t blame him for refusing to take a polygragh especially by those cops. They already were biased and thought he did it. They wouldn’t have asked the questions or done the test fairly. Polygraphs are not accurate anyway.

The cops were upset Scott and his dad wouldn’t play their game and also wanted to hire private detectives

Oh, boo hoo. The only one playing a game was Scott.

A game where he tells officers exactly where he went fishing that afternoon?

I thought Scott killed Laci and dumped her body there with fake anchors made of cement? Why would he tell cops exactly where he buried a body?

A body that cops couldn’t find for 5 months at the marina

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the A&E doc, one of the things that pissed off the detectives is Scott giving one of the cops a coaster for his cup of water. He thought that was suspicious for a man who just lost his wife to do.

It’s ridiculous the stuff they came up with. They just didn’t like Scott. The entire family originally thought she was alive and maybe went into labor and was at a local hospital. Even Sharon Rocha, Lacis mom, criticized the cops and the reporters who implied foul play. The family thought Laci went into labor prematurely.

I think he's guilty, but if for some reason he didn't get a fair trial then he should get one. However, I agree with you that there are dozens of nonsensical tidbits that people cling to as a reason for his guilt.

He had one of the best legal defense teams. He got a fair trial, he just didn’t like the outcome.

He didn’t get a fair trial whatsoever. The judge was on the side of the prosecution and ignored all the defense witnesses who saw Laci arguing with men by a strange van. Many witnesses were adamant they saw Laci walking the dog that morning and she was wearing black pants not beige pants like the pants she was discovered dead in. Scott also told cops the night Laci went missing that she was wearing black pants. The missing person reports from December all said Laci was last seen wearing black maternity pants.

When she was found in the Bay in April, she was for some reason wearing beige pants which confused the officers but they made the assumption Scott probably killed her on the evening of the 23rd when Laci was wearing beige pants at her sister Amy’s hair salon. How would Scott remember what was on Martha Stewart that morning if he killed Laci the evening before? Was he just an avid Martha fan?

Laci’s sister Amy also Identified those beige pants from December 23rd at Laci’s house early on in the investigation in February before Laci’s body was found.

The pants Laci was found in were beige capris not long beige pants like the ones Amy said Laci wore. The capris track more with an April death and it implies Laci was kidnapped and gave birth.

It’s hard to believe she wore beige capris on a cold Christmas Eve walk with the dog. All the witnesses who said they saw a pregnant woman walking a golden retriever said she was wearing long black pants.

She was 5’1”. Her pants are short. They were just her pants from the 23rd.

Yes, there was probably a woman walking a dog with black pants on.

How did Scott correctly guess lemon meringue was made on the Martha Stewart show on the morning of the 24th? On their home computer, someone logged in at 8:45am and went to yahoo! shopping to look up a red scarf and sunflower umbrella stand. Scott did all this?

It would be building his alibi.

Would it also build his alibi to leave a mop and bucket in the kitchen, tell cops he went fishing and washed clothes that day?

Scott wasn’t building any alibi. He was telling the truth about the day, but he didn’t know his actions and his calm demeanor worked against him. Scott said he was thinking by staying calm and acting friendly and giving cops water he’d be helping them take / investigate Laci’s disappearance more seriously. He miscalculated.

He kept hearing from witnesses that they saw Laci walking the dog and arguing with burglars. Scott kept pushing the cops about the burglars but the cops cleared them by polygraph supposedly very early on.

Why did Scott turn down the polygraph when the burglars took one?

You believe the burglars weren’t working with cops? They got a slap on the wrist for “good behavior” and barely did any time for the home invasion. The burglarly date was changed by police to December 26th. They wanted to make Scott the perp so badly. Sharon Rocha originally believed the burglars killed Laci. The cops hated Scott’s demeanor. That’s not a reason to make someone go to jail. That’s bad police work.

How did someone with connections to the burglars pawn Laci’s watch?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, maybe the cope didn't see any relationship between a stolen watch and Laci's death when there was a lot of evidence that SCOTT DID IT.

There was zero evidence SCOTT DID IT.

Fishermen at the marina said they saw right inside Scott’s boat that day and they didn’t see any blue tarp or anchors.

The prosecution created fake police “tips” that the boat was at the marina late night on the 23rd. Zero evidence of that and even more unlikely he’d take his first ride on that boat late at night. Even more unlikely, he’d browse the web and watch Martha Stewart to pretend Laci’s alive that morning but then tell the cops later that evening the exact spot where he went fishing.

That wouldn’t make sense

Except when he told Amber his wife was dead, dyed his hair, and fled toward Mexico with a large amount of cash. Other than that there was zero evidence. Okay.

He said his wife was gone and this was the first Christmas without her on December 8th. Gone isn’t dead. Gone is very vague. It could mean separated, divorced, widowed, estranged. He didn’t specify and Amber didn’t need specifications. She slept with him afterward and took him to her Christmas party. She didn’t pry further.

He didn’t want to say divorced because he didn’t plan on leaving Laci. The only reason he said anything at all is because Amber’s best friend found out he was married and told Scott he had till Monday to tell Amber directly.

He met Amber on November 20, 2002. He wasn’t going to spend Christmas with Amber and he didn’t go see Amber on the fishing trip on the 24th. Amber meant nothing to him and he planned to stay with Laci

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, maybe the cope didn't see any relationship between a stolen watch and Laci's death when there was a lot of evidence that SCOTT DID IT.

There was zero evidence SCOTT DID IT.

Fishermen at the marina said they saw right inside Scott’s boat that day and they didn’t see any blue tarp or anchors.

The prosecution created fake police “tips” that the boat was at the marina late night on the 23rd. Zero evidence of that and even more unlikely he’d take his first ride on that boat late at night. Even more unlikely, he’d browse the web and watch Martha Stewart to pretend Laci’s alive that morning but then tell the cops later that evening the exact spot where he went fishing.

That wouldn’t make sense

Except when he told Amber his wife was dead, dyed his hair, and fled toward Mexico with a large amount of cash. Other than that there was zero evidence. Okay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the A&E doc, one of the things that pissed off the detectives is Scott giving one of the cops a coaster for his cup of water. He thought that was suspicious for a man who just lost his wife to do.

It’s ridiculous the stuff they came up with. They just didn’t like Scott. The entire family originally thought she was alive and maybe went into labor and was at a local hospital. Even Sharon Rocha, Lacis mom, criticized the cops and the reporters who implied foul play. The family thought Laci went into labor prematurely.

I think he's guilty, but if for some reason he didn't get a fair trial then he should get one. However, I agree with you that there are dozens of nonsensical tidbits that people cling to as a reason for his guilt.

He had one of the best legal defense teams. He got a fair trial, he just didn’t like the outcome.

He didn’t get a fair trial whatsoever. The judge was on the side of the prosecution and ignored all the defense witnesses who saw Laci arguing with men by a strange van. Many witnesses were adamant they saw Laci walking the dog that morning and she was wearing black pants not beige pants like the pants she was discovered dead in. Scott also told cops the night Laci went missing that she was wearing black pants. The missing person reports from December all said Laci was last seen wearing black maternity pants.

When she was found in the Bay in April, she was for some reason wearing beige pants which confused the officers but they made the assumption Scott probably killed her on the evening of the 23rd when Laci was wearing beige pants at her sister Amy’s hair salon. How would Scott remember what was on Martha Stewart that morning if he killed Laci the evening before? Was he just an avid Martha fan?

Laci’s sister Amy also Identified those beige pants from December 23rd at Laci’s house early on in the investigation in February before Laci’s body was found.

The pants Laci was found in were beige capris not long beige pants like the ones Amy said Laci wore. The capris track more with an April death and it implies Laci was kidnapped and gave birth.

It’s hard to believe she wore beige capris on a cold Christmas Eve walk with the dog. All the witnesses who said they saw a pregnant woman walking a golden retriever said she was wearing long black pants.

She was 5’1”. Her pants are short. They were just her pants from the 23rd.

Yes, there was probably a woman walking a dog with black pants on.

How did Scott correctly guess lemon meringue was made on the Martha Stewart show on the morning of the 24th? On their home computer, someone logged in at 8:45am and went to yahoo! shopping to look up a red scarf and sunflower umbrella stand. Scott did all this?

It would be building his alibi.

Would it also build his alibi to leave a mop and bucket in the kitchen, tell cops he went fishing and washed clothes that day?

Scott wasn’t building any alibi. He was telling the truth about the day, but he didn’t know his actions and his calm demeanor worked against him. Scott said he was thinking by staying calm and acting friendly and giving cops water he’d be helping them take / investigate Laci’s disappearance more seriously. He miscalculated.

He kept hearing from witnesses that they saw Laci walking the dog and arguing with burglars. Scott kept pushing the cops about the burglars but the cops cleared them by polygraph supposedly very early on.

Why did Scott turn down the polygraph when the burglars took one?

Because his daddy told him not to. Sounds like the Petersons are as scummy and gross as their murdering son.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the A&E doc, one of the things that pissed off the detectives is Scott giving one of the cops a coaster for his cup of water. He thought that was suspicious for a man who just lost his wife to do.

It’s ridiculous the stuff they came up with. They just didn’t like Scott. The entire family originally thought she was alive and maybe went into labor and was at a local hospital. Even Sharon Rocha, Lacis mom, criticized the cops and the reporters who implied foul play. The family thought Laci went into labor prematurely.

I think he's guilty, but if for some reason he didn't get a fair trial then he should get one. However, I agree with you that there are dozens of nonsensical tidbits that people cling to as a reason for his guilt.

He had one of the best legal defense teams. He got a fair trial, he just didn’t like the outcome.

He didn’t get a fair trial whatsoever. The judge was on the side of the prosecution and ignored all the defense witnesses who saw Laci arguing with men by a strange van. Many witnesses were adamant they saw Laci walking the dog that morning and she was wearing black pants not beige pants like the pants she was discovered dead in. Scott also told cops the night Laci went missing that she was wearing black pants. The missing person reports from December all said Laci was last seen wearing black maternity pants.

When she was found in the Bay in April, she was for some reason wearing beige pants which confused the officers but they made the assumption Scott probably killed her on the evening of the 23rd when Laci was wearing beige pants at her sister Amy’s hair salon. How would Scott remember what was on Martha Stewart that morning if he killed Laci the evening before? Was he just an avid Martha fan?

Laci’s sister Amy also Identified those beige pants from December 23rd at Laci’s house early on in the investigation in February before Laci’s body was found.

The pants Laci was found in were beige capris not long beige pants like the ones Amy said Laci wore. The capris track more with an April death and it implies Laci was kidnapped and gave birth.

It’s hard to believe she wore beige capris on a cold Christmas Eve walk with the dog. All the witnesses who said they saw a pregnant woman walking a golden retriever said she was wearing long black pants.

She was 5’1”. Her pants are short. They were just her pants from the 23rd.

Yes, there was probably a woman walking a dog with black pants on.

How did Scott correctly guess lemon meringue was made on the Martha Stewart show on the morning of the 24th? On their home computer, someone logged in at 8:45am and went to yahoo! shopping to look up a red scarf and sunflower umbrella stand. Scott did all this?

It would be building his alibi.

Would it also build his alibi to leave a mop and bucket in the kitchen, tell cops he went fishing and washed clothes that day?

Scott wasn’t building any alibi. He was telling the truth about the day, but he didn’t know his actions and his calm demeanor worked against him. Scott said he was thinking by staying calm and acting friendly and giving cops water he’d be helping them take / investigate Laci’s disappearance more seriously. He miscalculated.

He kept hearing from witnesses that they saw Laci walking the dog and arguing with burglars. Scott kept pushing the cops about the burglars but the cops cleared them by polygraph supposedly very early on.

Oh well. Scott could have cleared himself by polygraph but refused. Guilty is as guilty does.

Scott was advised by his father not to. He has a history of cheating and lying. I don’t blame him for refusing to take a polygragh especially by those cops. They already were biased and thought he did it. They wouldn’t have asked the questions or done the test fairly. Polygraphs are not accurate anyway.

The cops were upset Scott and his dad wouldn’t play their game and also wanted to hire private detectives

Oh, boo hoo. The only one playing a game was Scott.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the A&E doc, one of the things that pissed off the detectives is Scott giving one of the cops a coaster for his cup of water. He thought that was suspicious for a man who just lost his wife to do.

It’s ridiculous the stuff they came up with. They just didn’t like Scott. The entire family originally thought she was alive and maybe went into labor and was at a local hospital. Even Sharon Rocha, Lacis mom, criticized the cops and the reporters who implied foul play. The family thought Laci went into labor prematurely.

I think he's guilty, but if for some reason he didn't get a fair trial then he should get one. However, I agree with you that there are dozens of nonsensical tidbits that people cling to as a reason for his guilt.

He had one of the best legal defense teams. He got a fair trial, he just didn’t like the outcome.

He didn’t get a fair trial whatsoever. The judge was on the side of the prosecution and ignored all the defense witnesses who saw Laci arguing with men by a strange van. Many witnesses were adamant they saw Laci walking the dog that morning and she was wearing black pants not beige pants like the pants she was discovered dead in. Scott also told cops the night Laci went missing that she was wearing black pants. The missing person reports from December all said Laci was last seen wearing black maternity pants.

When she was found in the Bay in April, she was for some reason wearing beige pants which confused the officers but they made the assumption Scott probably killed her on the evening of the 23rd when Laci was wearing beige pants at her sister Amy’s hair salon. How would Scott remember what was on Martha Stewart that morning if he killed Laci the evening before? Was he just an avid Martha fan?

Laci’s sister Amy also Identified those beige pants from December 23rd at Laci’s house early on in the investigation in February before Laci’s body was found.

The pants Laci was found in were beige capris not long beige pants like the ones Amy said Laci wore. The capris track more with an April death and it implies Laci was kidnapped and gave birth.

It’s hard to believe she wore beige capris on a cold Christmas Eve walk with the dog. All the witnesses who said they saw a pregnant woman walking a golden retriever said she was wearing long black pants.

She was 5’1”. Her pants are short. They were just her pants from the 23rd.

Yes, there was probably a woman walking a dog with black pants on.

How did Scott correctly guess lemon meringue was made on the Martha Stewart show on the morning of the 24th? On their home computer, someone logged in at 8:45am and went to yahoo! shopping to look up a red scarf and sunflower umbrella stand. Scott did all this?

It would be building his alibi.

Would it also build his alibi to leave a mop and bucket in the kitchen, tell cops he went fishing and washed clothes that day?

Scott wasn’t building any alibi. He was telling the truth about the day, but he didn’t know his actions and his calm demeanor worked against him. Scott said he was thinking by staying calm and acting friendly and giving cops water he’d be helping them take / investigate Laci’s disappearance more seriously. He miscalculated.

He kept hearing from witnesses that they saw Laci walking the dog and arguing with burglars. Scott kept pushing the cops about the burglars but the cops cleared them by polygraph supposedly very early on.

Why did Scott turn down the polygraph when the burglars took one?