Not to mention, no one who just lost their wife and son gets on the phone 9 days later and laughs and flirts and giggles with his gf telling her how sexy she is. NO ONE.

He did.

im talking about the trial. all they need for a not guilty verdict is doubt. if they brought up the witness who said the boat was empty, and the fact she confronted neighborhood burglars a week before, could cause doubt.

in courts it doesnt matter if the person did it, the thing that matters is who can get the jury to go to whatever side.

also visiting his mistress when Laci went missing, taking out large amounts of money the day before

My belief is there wasn't enough evidence to convict him.

That being said, he was still probably involved in the murder. It just didn't go down the way the prosecutors painted it. I'm guessing he hired some people (the burglers across the street?) to snatch her either during her morning walk or after. The person or persons who got her were probably told how to get into the house or into the backyard and wait for her. Surprise her and maybe chloroform her from there. There was no evidence of a struggle in or around the house.

Now that is possible. Might also explain the loose dog. Though he could have done that on purpose as well.

But he was involved somehow.

there is no doubt in my mind the burgalars had something to do with it. that is way to councidental.

as far as the verdict goes, the prosecution did not prove without any doubt that he did it. if i was on that jury i would have voted not guilty (atleast by what we know as outsiders).

if i was a betting man i certainly would not bet on his innocence. in fact he likely had something to do with it. But sorry, “likely” is not enough to send a man to death. is it likely he either killed her or hired someone to kill her? i think so. But is it also possible that a dude who is having an affair can have his wife be murdered by someone else? absolutely. thats reasonable doubt. you cant convict him because he didnt behave like you believe he should. everyone reacts differently to trauma.

as long as i can chalk everything the prosecution had on Scott up to councidence then hes not guilty and thats the only justifiable position to hold in our justic system. presume innocence.

did he say this was his last holiday with his wife? yes. does this prove anything and can you prove to me it wasnt councidental? nope.

was he fishing on the bay? yes. does this prove he killed and dumped her body in the bay? nope. it shows SOMEONE dumped it in the bay. even the detective said he didnt believe it would be Laci because so many bodies might be in the bay. clearly anyone who killed Laci would habe thought to dump her in the bay. Or what is possible is that the murderer saw all the news coverage and knew Scott was on the bay fishing and knew they already suspected thats where he dumped the body and decided themselves to just throw the body there to frame him. that might not be all that likely but it is possible.

as long as there is no hard forensic evidence connecting him all these instances dont hold much weight. they really only matter if Scott is placed at the scene or physically connected. then they add support.

So, i think theres above 50% chance he did it, but if the justice system is to be honored you simply cant convict him.

well the son wasnt born yet and many people these days dont even believe unborn babies are people. i dont know his personal beliefs on that so i can put his reaction to the death of his unborn son aside.

as far as his wife goes, is it possible he fell out of love with her and lost all emotional connection with her and NOT felt like murdering her? chit happens all the time and people dont get murdered. sure, i would still expect him to have a mucb harsher reaction than he did but emotional reactions dont prove chit bro.

Hell, he could have even hated her and wanted her dead and still not have actually killed her. are you telling me thats an impossible scenario? maybe he was even relieved she was dead. that still doesnt mean he did it. sorry.

unless there was forensic evidence of the murder there is enough doubt here. someones facial expressions is simply not enough. some people are emotionally muted.

the burglary and the tip that showed the inmate and his brother from modesto had a phone covnersation about laci gives me enough to believe in an alternate theory.

again, i think he likely was involved but i couldnt convict him as there is too much doubt and too little evidence.

I'm on episode 2. The lack of physical evidence is hard to reconcile, and the police dept seems inept.

I don't care about any of this bs about "he didn't seem to be mourning" or he gave the detective a coaster for his water so he must be a murderer. But telling your other sloot that your wife is dead and then carrying on pretending to be in paris is beyond shady.

Haven't been swayed either way yet.

guilty, as charged

this guy had 4 cell phones on him, he's 110% involved somehow

Nice to see a good discussion up in here.

having 4 cell phones, and being a total scumbag does not = murderer

i have casually watched the 1st 3 episodes and from what i saw, not sure I could of rendered a guilty verdict, i will have to watch the rest and more closely soon. I think A&E did an excellent job on the show.

Finished the series up last night and it pretty much only reaffirms everything it's been building toward.

Guilty or not, he did not receive a fair trial. That is the heart of the issue and it should bother everyone claiming his guilt.Just imagine if you are in the defendant's chair and you're getting railroaded at every turn... and you just have to sit there in court and deal with what is taking place. You have no influence on what is going on. They key to our justice system is everyone receiving a fair trial. If there is a chance he is innocent and he is locked up, then the system has entirely failed.

- police did not investigate the burglary across the street fully. when they did investigate it, they claimed it took place on the 26th. a witness clearly phoned in the burglary and stated it took place on the 24th.

- the biggest thing everyone claiming his guilt was "he went fishing on the day she went missing. the same place he went fishing was where her body was found." in everyone's eyes, this is too much of a coincidence to pass up.
- related to that.... her body was found with no head, no hands, and no feet. what are the odds that 6months prior to her death that ANOTHER women who was late term pregnant, was also found in the bay with no head, no hands, and no feet. if it's too much of a coincidence that scott was fishing where she was found, then certainly there should be a screaming coincidence at the circumstances of her death and another one that is entirely the same.

- the person they used to talk about tidal waves movement and how the body washed ashore, when questioned, said he was not an expert at all.

- the dog they used to "track her body to the docks" had multiple issues: it failed it's re-certification test, it failed it's tracking test 75% of the time, and supposedly tracked her scent on the docks while the body was in the boat the entire time.

- the judge would not allow a defense video/example of them trying to throw 100lb body out of the boat, yet the judge did allow jurors to stand and test the boat on land. basically, the prosecutors said that scott dumped the body over the boat..... and so the jurors clearly were able to test that theory to some extent by trying the boat on land as part of the prosecution, yet now allowed to view examples of it in a real scenario as part of the defense.

- there are thousands of pages of documents involved in a case, so they use a machine to auto-scan them to make them accessible. this scanner had a couple pages get stuck together and one of them showed a mailman's log-in time with a package he dropped off at the peterson house. the timing of this changes the entire timeline of events and shows that laci would have been out walking her dog far past the original time, which means scott was away and she was still alive. it matches up with eye-witness accounts that were discredited earlier based on the times they said they saw her.

- plenty of issues in the jury suggesting misconduct during the trial, meaning alternates were brought up, and then issues afterward (jurors going on television cracking jokes about the case and outcome)

the series really showed a complete opposite side that the general public, including myself, never heard or knew of during the initial trial. all we were pounded with over the head was "mistress" "fishing" "body in the bay." I know everyone believes he's guilty, and for his sake I hope he really is... but at the end of the day he did not receive a fair trial whatsoever from what was shown. everyone was solely focused on his mistress and just having a mistress =/= murder.

there was plenty of reasonable doubt in his trial

edit*

- the prosecutors could not say WHERE the murder took place (in his home? garage? kitchen? backyard?)
- the prosecutors could not say HOW the murder took place (did he use a weapon? strangle? poison?)
- the prosecutors could not say WHEN the murder took place (was it the night before? early morning day of?)

how can you convict for DEATH when you can't even answer these basic questions other than he's suspect.

is this on netflix or something? or hbo? on what tv program can i watch this on if i'm interested?

therefore, every man who has cheated on his wife has murdered her?

if you believe he's guilty, then you should have no problem with a fair trial because the outcome would be the same, correct?

all the show did was point out reasonable doubt which is what everyone on trial is entitled to by a jury of his peersit was on A&E - they may have an app for a smartTV. There was a couple posts on page 2 i think about some other streaming service that has the show.

you may be able to find it online

If he had someone else kill her, why would he have them dump her body in the same area that he was 'fishing'?

Police announced his alibi so the murderers probably dumped the body there to frame Scott.

Who knows really.

Still not enough concrete evidence to make him guilty of the crime.

Just finished. Still not convinced he's guilty or innocent.

If he's guilty, there's no way it happened like the prosecution said it did. THAT many witnesses who saw her walking? The mailman? The burglars? If he's guilty, he definitely hired people to do it while he was out fishing.

If he's innocent, he's the unluckiest guy in the world. Using a sob story about your dead wife on your other woman and then a month later your wife goes missing? What are the odds?

I think he's probably involved, but it was handled so poorly by the police and there is more than enough doubt that there is no way I could convict him.

Probably what disturbed me most was the jurors boasting about it and saying they were gonna fry him, and getting jurors who disagreed with them thrown out. Does that sound like an impartial jury to you? There's just no way these people went into it completely untainted by the media.

This, This, So much fuarking this!!!

Some of those jury members acted like smug rockstars. That one guy and ratchet woman with pink hair need to die asap.

I bet you were glued to your tv when they did that show on JonBenét Ramsey... what's your theory on that murder???

A random burgler / druggie / person / skeeter & dirty, kills her at or around her house, removes her body, puts her somewhere safe while she gets stiff and rots and waits for the police to announce husbands alibi, drives an hour and a half, and dumps body so they can pin on husband they don't know is creampieing sidepiece?

Scott hires someone who executes a flawless evidence free murder and then trolls Scott by putting body at the exact location Scott admits to being during the murder; risking Scott ratting his accomplice out and taking him down with him?

That is "reasonable" doubt?

if there is a shred of a reason to doubt then its reasonable doubt in the court. the fact there is zero forensic evidence,l nor an explanation to how she was killed, where she was killed and even when she was killed, makes it impossible to “know” he did it. all you have is speculation based on potential motive and his facial expressions.

bruh, anyone who would convict someone to death based on that is subhuman

Burglars who everyone in the neighborhood saw that day suddenly became super villain criminals planting evidence. LOL!

It was hard to keep watching when Nancy Grace started chiming in. She is such a POS.

I focking hate this revisionist history bullsh!t. Scott did it. Period. These "documentaries" leave out key details that get people thinking that maybe the verdict was all wrong. It's all about ratings. They did the same thing with OJ and Jon Benet.

ima say not guilty because from what i saw he should be not guilty. i prolly woulda voted not guilty.

i watched it when it was on the news like 15 years ago too. not enough in my eyes for a conviction.

Theory? Was there a trial for Jon Benet Ramsey? What does that have to do with thiscourt casewhatsoever?Reasonable doubt:A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation.It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence.

There was reasonable doubt as to his guilt. There were many instances where the prosecution's case fell flat or outright was disproven. There does not have to be some perfect other theory as to what happened in the murder - i.e. the defense doesn't have to present perfect evidence about some other suspect, rather they can cast doubt (within what a person would find reasonable) as to Scott's guilt.

The burglars were confronted by her. It's plausible they murdered her after that.

It's also equally strange that another pregnant woman was found in the bay, in the exact same condition as Laci's body.

Laci was reported walking in public well past the time that Scott was around, meaning she was alive while he was away.

There was a retroactive dating done on the baby's body. The person in court who did it listed the date as the 24th. When his findings were mailed to the creator of the retroactive dating, he pointed out tons of errors and showed the baby was alive well past that date, meaning = the baby was at the very least alive past the day she went missing. If he reports her missing and she's still alive past that date, he did not kill her.

All of these are within reason to disprove the prosecution's case.

The defense isn't saying "well.... aliens came in right after scott went to work, killed her without a trace, and dumped her body when they located scott's boat on the bay by their advanced geo-tracking systems". The defense is providing alternatives to what was presented by the prosecution, and reasonable doubt can be cast because these are reasonable counters or outright dis-proofs.

It's funny you say that because every time she appeared I would press the skip ahead 30 sec button on my remote.

Reminds me of the movie Gone Girl.