Anonymous wrote:if i was hosting christmas eve at my house, there is no way on god's green earth that my husband would be out fishing. that alone is damning enough for me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public opinion and even the police opinion is driven by the media unfortunately. People wanted to take the words of Amber very seriously as if she’s some moral paragon of virtue. She saw no problem with being a mistress to a married man with a pregnant wife at home

I see no reason to drag Amber through the mud. She didn't know she was a mistress. She thought he was her boyfriend. He told her that he lost his wife and this would be the first Christmas without her, and that was before she was dead.

And when she did know who he was because of all the media coverage, she went to the police and the audio recordings she helped to facilitate are likely a large part of why he is in prison today.

Ahh so you trust a police patsy? Amber was a poor massage therapist and surely made a killing (no pun intended) from this charade. I don’t trust her farther than I can spit.

I’m not saying Scott is Husband of the Year. He isn’t but the entire trial weighed on the testimony of Amber Frey. I never liked or trusted Amber or thought she was being honest.

I also always believed Scott was innocent. It makes no sense why he wouldn’t confess after all these years since he was sentenced to life anyway. I don’t think he was a sociopath who would dismember and behead his wife and wrap twine around his sons neck without leaving a trace.

I think Laci was being nosy and walked in to the confront the house robbers across the street and they kidnapped her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public opinion and even the police opinion is driven by the media unfortunately. People wanted to take the words of Amber very seriously as if she’s some moral paragon of virtue. She saw no problem with being a mistress to a married man with a pregnant wife at home

That’s an awful thing to say. Amber Frey didn’t know he was married, she thought he was widowed. As soon as she learned the truth, she contacted the police and started recording Scott and cooperating with them fully. She did absolutely nothing wrong and has been attacked relentlessly for years.

That said, Scott’s cold, deceptive character as demonstrated on those tapes is likely why he was convicted. The jury hated him. We all hate him. He’s an awful person. I don’t know whether he’s guilty. I think I would vote to acquit because the prosecution proved he was a terrible person: a liar, a cheater, indifferent to Laci and Conner’s fate. But I don’t think the evidence proves that Scott killed Laci.

I’m always suspicious when law enforcement resists DNA testing. It’s so much more advanced than it was at the time of the murder. If they really firmly believe Scott did it, they should want those results.

A lot of the arguments in this thread show how personality based this conviction was. For example, if you need to hire an expensive attorney you might be looking at what you could sell. That Scott wanted to sell Laci’s car again demonstrates what a pig he is, but it’s not evidence of murder.

What about him fleeing toward Mexico? Was he just in the mood for a vacation?
I don't think so. The fact that he dyed his hair blond and fled toward Mexico supports a consciousness of guilt. If he were innocent, he would have been in Modesto supporting the investigation. But he's an arrogant prick who always has his nose in the air, even after 20 years in the slammer. He's an absolute pig, and he should rot in jail.

Anonymous wrote:I dont see how cinderblocks or anchors could decapitate Laci. The crime was very very gruesome. She was found with her head and neck and hand missing.

I just don’t buy that marine life and anchors could do all of that and tie twine tightly around the baby’s neck. That all sounds like it was done before they were dumped in the bay. A 160 lb Laci would wash up on the bay if she were in one piece. The sick bastard or bastards that did this really made sure the body was cut up so it wouldn’t wash up to shore quickly.

The state shut down any forensics pathologists who said Lacis body was not butchered by marine life or water

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy is clearly guilty. I’m shocked that anyone with a functioning brain could think otherwise.

No forensic DNA tied him to the death. It’s all circumstantial evidence like what he told his girlfriend about the relationship being over (most cheaters say that ) and going fishing.

That doesn’t mean he killed his wife.

Just because it's circumstantial evidence doesn't mean he did not kill her. There's enough circumstances that lead to the conclusion he killed her.

Life without parole and lethal injection is an insane sentence for a case with zero forensic evidence.

DNA doesn’t lie. Forensics always give the right clues and tell the truth and yet they’re never used in cases. People use “assumed narratives” and use your words against you. If you got in an argument with your spouse and they vanished and died the next day, you can go to jail because the courts have decided you had motive because you told them to “get lost”.

That’s how flimsy circumstantial evidence is. Scott telling Amber Laci is out of the picture and soon she’ll be gone and it’ll just be them 2 doesn’t mean he killed her. Only forensics can tell us that and there’s no way he could behead and Dismember her body without the dog altering the neighborhood, the house and car being a huge bloody mess, and the boat as well. Human blood stains do not just disappear easily let alone an entire pool of blood from beheading. A white boat and carpeted house and car could not be that clean with a gruesome crime like that

So where was this bloody mess in the break-in guys’ van? Or at their homes? Or on their clothes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy is clearly guilty. I’m shocked that anyone with a functioning brain could think otherwise.

No forensic DNA tied him to the death. It’s all circumstantial evidence like what he told his girlfriend about the relationship being over (most cheaters say that ) and going fishing.

That doesn’t mean he killed his wife.

Just because it's circumstantial evidence doesn't mean he did not kill her. There's enough circumstances that lead to the conclusion he killed her.

Life without parole and lethal injection is an insane sentence for a case with zero forensic evidence.

DNA doesn’t lie. Forensics always give the right clues and tell the truth and yet they’re never used in cases. People use “assumed narratives” and use your words against you. If you got in an argument with your spouse and they vanished and died the next day, you can go to jail because the courts have decided you had motive because you told them to “get lost”.

That’s how flimsy circumstantial evidence is. Scott telling Amber Laci is out of the picture and soon she’ll be gone and it’ll just be them 2 doesn’t mean he killed her. Only forensics can tell us that and there’s no way he could behead and Dismember her body without the dog altering the neighborhood, the house and car being a huge bloody mess, and the boat as well. Human blood stains do not just disappear easily let alone an entire pool of blood from beheading. A white boat and carpeted house and car could not be that clean with a gruesome crime like that

Anonymous wrote:The logistics could clear Paterson if the public was not branding him with a scarlet letter for cheating.

Twine around little Connor’s neck and electrical tape on his ear doesn’t just happen randomly in water. It was placed there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public opinion and even the police opinion is driven by the media unfortunately. People wanted to take the words of Amber very seriously as if she’s some moral paragon of virtue. She saw no problem with being a mistress to a married man with a pregnant wife at home

I see no reason to drag Amber through the mud. She didn't know she was a mistress. She thought he was her boyfriend. He told her that he lost his wife and this would be the first Christmas without her, and that was before she was dead.

And when she did know who he was because of all the media coverage, she went to the police and the audio recordings she helped to facilitate are likely a large part of why he is in prison today.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He and Chris Watts remind me so much of each other.

Their families have a lot of similarities, too. Both choose not to believe the truth about what they did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public opinion and even the police opinion is driven by the media unfortunately. People wanted to take the words of Amber very seriously as if she’s some moral paragon of virtue. She saw no problem with being a mistress to a married man with a pregnant wife at home

That’s an awful thing to say. Amber Frey didn’t know he was married, she thought he was widowed. As soon as she learned the truth, she contacted the police and started recording Scott and cooperating with them fully. She did absolutely nothing wrong and has been attacked relentlessly for years.

That said, Scott’s cold, deceptive character as demonstrated on those tapes is likely why he was convicted. The jury hated him. We all hate him. He’s an awful person. I don’t know whether he’s guilty. I think I would vote to acquit because the prosecution proved he was a terrible person: a liar, a cheater, indifferent to Laci and Conner’s fate. But I don’t think the evidence proves that Scott killed Laci.

I’m always suspicious when law enforcement resists DNA testing. It’s so much more advanced than it was at the time of the murder. If they really firmly believe Scott did it, they should want those results.

A lot of the arguments in this thread show how personality based this conviction was. For example, if you need to hire an expensive attorney you might be looking at what you could sell. That Scott wanted to sell Laci’s car again demonstrates what a pig he is, but it’s not evidence of murder.

What about him fleeing toward Mexico? Was he just in the mood for a vacation?
I don't think so. The fact that he dyed his hair blond and fled toward Mexico supports a consciousness of guilt. If he were innocent, he would have been in Modesto supporting the investigation. But he's an arrogant prick who always has his nose in the air, even after 20 years in the slammer. He's an absolute pig, and he should rot in jail.

NP. I think he did it. But I get why he has blonde hair. He was probably getting recognized everywhere he went and just probably wanted to get by unnoticed. He also spent a lot of time in San Diego with a sibling. So again, the fact that he was in San Diego was actually pretty normal for him at that point.

There are enough other things that point to him being guilty, no need to grasp at straws.

Dying his hair, using someone elses ID, carrying $15k in cash along with a giant bag of viagra while fleeing to mexico is not "grasping at straws".