...
And I hope an appeals court upholds me, that they had no evidence that Scott killed his wife, just that he was cheating on her. They advertised to God and everybody about the boat he'd rented and ANYONE who did kill her would have known where to dump the body/bodies to help pin it on him.
They found the baby outside her body, saying decomposition or scavenger fish would account for it... but so would some maniac on the street trying to rip her open to abduct her baby and fucking it up have accounted for it... and it wouldn't have taken long to realize where to dispose of the evidence so as never to be found out.
And, between the time Scott would have had to be dumping her in the bay and the time they found the remains, there would not have been enough left of her or her baby to identify... skeletons maybe, but those would not have washed up on shore.
I don't know if he did it or not, but I know for sure there was no proof, and finding the bodies after advertising so heavily the general vicinity where they ought to be found doesn't fix that. I don't think he should have been convicted, but others insist there was so much circumstantial evidence he's for sure guilty, to which I have remained adamant that he should never have been given the death sentence with this ten mile wide hole in the case against him.
NOW we've got ELEVEN witnesses who saw her out walking their dog while he was at work? That for sure outweighs one pissed off side piece, but what does it do to a "justice" system determined to convict? Even if he is a selfish shit who treated women like cuts of meat, isn't fifteen years on death row punishment enough for that?
pipe up any time....
