Even though there is very little direct physical evidence in this case, I think he is as guilty as he can be. The man is a scheming pathological liar. Look at his demeanor and his attitude towards his "missing" wife during the weeks and months after December 24th, 2002. GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!
We can all think what we want to think about the case. However, there is NO hardcore evidence, no dna, no admittance to guilt, no concrete proof.
I really dont think that he did it, no. I think Amber Frey did it. She wanted Scott. She has a history. See she was seeing her dentist at one time. He was married. He kept tellung her he was going to leave his wife and never did. Amber threatens to tell his wife, even tells him she has proof they have been together. Why would she have proof? She was setting him up. She wanted him. She did call his wife and tell her what was going on. After that the dentist did seperate from his wife. But stupid Amber did not realize that he would not want her after she busted his marriage.
This woman recrded phone calls even before Lacy come up missing. She set Scott us too. But I think that she went too far this time. She is the one they should be looking at.
This is just my opinion/theory.
But the facts remain there is no concrete evidence at all. Yes they found a few hairs on Scotts boat. But Lacy was his wife, do they not think that she was ever with him around the boat?
Or at his storage shed? She was his wife for gods sake. You can loose hairs anywhere. It is not uncanny at all that his wifes hair wold be on anything that is his.
If he is guilty they will have to prove without a shadow wof a doubt. I am thinking on the lines of OJ here. There was never a way to completly prove that OJ killed Nichole. There is no way to prove that Scott killed lacy. You can think he did it, you may never know who did it. We may never knmow, we can only speculate.
Just as in the Oj cade, yed Nichooe is dead, and a lot of people think that OJ or Cato or both did it. But do we have concrete proof? Nope we sure dont.
So like I sid looks like the OJ case all over again. Unless the DA can pull a rabit out of his hat and has somethhing he is holding for a later date, i think Scott is a free man. This may not be true, but thats were its heading.
there are far more important thing we need to worry about than if some dip :dung: killed his wife. how about getting the sobs that are lopping off heads or I know winning the war on islamofashism.
Reality.......none of us actually knows what the evidence against Perterson is.
Do they have Direct Evidence? NO, not that we are aware of.
Do they have Circumstantial Evidence? YES, and at times the preponderance of this type of evidence is all it takes.
You can prove murder without having a body!! He would have got nailed eventually, God just saw fit to make it happen a little quicker.
Did he lie, were the bodies found in the very bay he claimed to be fishing in, was he caught carrying cash, dyed hair, beard, brothers ID, close to the boarder, did he start selling off her things before the bodies were found????
Hell the evidence all points a finger at his nappy mug. Was his flavor of the month involved? Who knows. If she was, she's smarter than he is!!!
Lets face it, he wanted out of the marriage. He just wasn't willing to give up the marital assets.
I never said who was for a fact guilty and who wasnt....
I stated a opinion, we all have one.
It is just one of those things. We may never know the truth.
We never KNEW the REAL truth if OJ did it or not.
And probably never will, this Petterson case just might be the same way.
Snow:
We cant for sure say that Scott did this, they have circumstancial evidence. Nothing point directly to him. It just surrounds him. Of coarse it does, they were married.
About the goatee and money, he didnt have that much cash. He was scared, he knew they wanted him.
Read the documents on court TV.
He may have done it, he may have not. But the point is that a woman and a baby are dead and the blame has to be laid somewhere.
