You should be on the prosecution team. You are more convincing than they are. A couple of points.
I think he's guilty because of his shifting alibi that he wouldn't commit to any one story. His first impulse was to lie. His alibi shifted from golf to fishing to golf to fishing on Dec.24th.
There are reasons to give a conflicting story to different people for the same day. This itself is not reason enough to convict. That he mentioned fishing at all would seem to be in his favor. That is the last thing I think someone that did this would mention. Or, maybe his alibi of golf was not a good one and that is why he mentioned the fishing trip.
I think he's guilty because he was at all the potential scenes of crime his house, the warehouse, the bay and he had access to a boat which would have been needed to bury her body at sea.
That would certainly lead someone to suspect him. But, people can be the victim of circumstances. It has happened many times before. And if he was set up by someone, as in framed, then of course it would look this obvious. That is why we should need much more than this to convict.
He also had motive. He was 'extremely' motivated to seek sexual favors elsewhere..
Perhaps, perhaps not. By this standard, every spouse that cheats is motivated to kill and I don't buy that.
You could have added, why did he change his hair color and try to run before being arrested. It is not unreasonable, though, that someone would consider running even if they are innocent. If he realized he had been set up or that it sure looked bad even though he was innocent, why stick around.
Again, what you say points in his direction. Too me, though, it is not enough to convict.
Did you hear the stuff that came out on Amber Fry? According to what I heard on Greta, she has been in some very similar situations with other men. Some and exact match to the circumstances in this case. Did anyone consider that she could be involved? The cicumstantial evidence you say points to Scott Peterson could as easily point to her. What if she told Peterson what she did, that she had done it. And let him know he had set him up. Had you considered this?
This has been out for a while...was discussed ad nauseum this time last year. Alot of flames tossed on this subject.
Her married ex-flame's name is Dave.
There are reasons to give a conflicting story to different people for the same day. This itself is not reason enough to convict. That he mentioned fishing at all would seem to be in his favor. That is the last thing I think someone that did this would mention. Or, maybe his alibi of golf was not a good one and that is why he mentioned the fishing trip.
----
What pray tell are reasons to give conflicting stories. If he were innocent he would have felt comfortable with the truth and stood on it.. till kingdom come....Why would he give a d*** what others think enough to shift his story, What he did, Was what he did= this is where I was PERIOD. The fact that he shifted points strongly to his guilt. I think the only reason he 'finally' committed to fishing in the bay is that he felt comfortable (at the time) that the body would never be found. But then later, he became less confident an made repeated trips back there before the bodies were recovered..
Not only that, but Golfing would have involved a lot more witnesses who could have denied that he was ever there.
By this standard, every spouse that cheats is motivated to kill and I don't buy that.
----
You just called it a standard I didn't.. Your statement that this is a standard is illogical. His own motivation in fact is just that- His. In my mind it points strongly to HIS culpability...
Regarding his question about cadaver dogs: After he was dropped off at his house early Dec 25 and discover the gun was gone from the glove box and called back to ask about it, he was told LE did have the gun. He then asked that famous question "are you using cadaver dogs?" I took that as sarcasm implying "you think she's dead and I shot her".
The part about telling a couple people he had been playing golf can be understood if you're talking to a distraut husband saying golfing when he meant to say fishing. If he were guilty, he would have been consistant with his alibi, knowing these people would be questioned.
Laci and Connor's bodies turning up where they did is something I cannot explain. I'm waiting to see what both prosecution and defense have to say about this. Hopefully this fiasco on Wednesday won't result in a mistrial. Time will tell.
Time to put you on ignore along with blues apple