How will a jury do that, Anse, by her appearance? Her ability to articulate? Body language? Her background, other than she was romantically involved with Scott, would not be available to the jury. According to our threads, that's irrelevant. Only Scott's behaviors are relevant! So, okay, the defendant's the one on trial, agreed. The plaintiff in this case is the state. Does that mean they have the right (seems like they do), to run roughshod over a man they've accused, because of his behaviors, and let a woman, who was his mistress "lead their investigation", without examining her past and present behaviors, because she passed their LD test. That made her credible enough in MPD's eyes to (a) get a court-ordered wiretap, (b) ask him leading questions, and (c) be sure that the answers to some of those questions get leaked to the press and put on national TV, even though there was a gag order!
Another leak suggests that there was a taped conversation toward the end of the wiretap, that Scott made a reference to Melvin King and Cory Carroll. Wonder why that leak wasn't thoroughly hashed over? Could it be that prosecution doesn't want the public to wonder how it came to be that Amber knew them both?
Once more, I believe that Scott had a hand in his wife disappearance and death, and think he should be severely punished for it, but would like for prosecution to prove their case with evidence and without Deputy Amber's further involvement.
But for the sake of harmony on the thread and a unified front on Amber's credibility, I won't say anything else and we will have to see where the case leads and how events unfold.