Replies

Hey ... those of us who believe Scott did this (er... I think there are quite a few of us...) were wondering why kill her when pregnant, right? I ventured to guess that he wanted to get it done b/f the baby came out b/c he thought for some reason it would be worse if he directly killed an infant. (Though of course it's really the same thing, the way he did it.)

Others pointed out to me that it was unlikely that Scott would even find an infant appealing, if the child was in the way of his "freedom". That's probably true.

So: maybe he picked that time to kill her b/c he knew it was his last chance to get rid of them both. B/C he knew it was a pretty impossible story, that some random murderer would kill a lady AND her infant child. No one would believe that. I mean, seems weirdos are always killing some poor woman b/c of some twisted sexual/homicidal thing, but it's rare for some random person to just kill a tiny baby in its crib. That, to me, is what made McDonald look so very suspicious. It was so unbelievable that these "hippies" broke in and conveniently killed everyone except him.

"So: maybe he picked that time to kill her b/c he knew it was his last chance to get rid of them both. B/C he knew it was a pretty impossible story, that some random murderer would kill a lady AND her infant child."

I think you're right. Most of the time when there are children who are too young to tell people what happened the murderers leave them alone. I had Dateline on the other night and they were talking about the Fenney case in Missouri and that was one thing they pointed out. Whoever did it took the time (and effort) to kill a baby too young to talk to police. Investigators thought this supported the theory that the husband did it.

Hey ... those of us who believe Scott did this (er... I think there are quite a few of us.

There are quite a few who think he did it, and I, too, think he PROBABLY did it. But I still can't quite join the crusade to "get Scott" based on the PROBABLY. There are too many pieces of the puzzle, or questions I have that make it POSSIBLE he did not actually perform the dastardly deed himself. Did he hire someone? I know--he could still get the death sentence for hiring someone, but we still do not know, for instance, what the DA is doing with evidence that Cory Carroll was involved! We don't know what the mailbox rented on the 23rd (I think) is all about. We don't know about a possible meth connection, and we don't know if Amber called SP's home. We don't know what the "waistband" is going to tell us about what Laci was wearing. We hear that Laci and Amy inherited quite a lot of jewelry that possibly COULD/MIGHT come into play. We don't know who Scott was to play golf with that day. I could go on and on.

I want some really important questions answered before this guy gets the needle-- questions other than 'is that Laci's hair in the pliers'. Sure it is, but there are a lot of ways that hair could have gotten there. Personally, I wouldn't convict a man on that evidence, nor do I think it means Laci was definitely in the boat. JMO