You know, I know, and most everyone else believes that he murdered Laci and her baby. But, is 'believing' this enough to convict him?
It will be, if the jury believes it.
Here's what I've been doing: After reading about the various facts that have been proven so far, and also including info from sources I believe to be reliable, I then have tried to figure a way someone OTHER than Scott may have killed Laci.
When would it have happened?
Where? It must've been in or close to her home, b/c her car never left the driveway, and was found there when he got home. And her keys were in her purse. No one drove the car that day. Or, if Laci did drive that day, she made it home safely.
Why did the killer take her dead body 90 miles away?
If they did put her in the Bay to "frame Scott", then how did they know Scott had been there that day? How early was it really widely reported that he had said he was there? In the early reports, did they really give a specific area where Scott said he'd been? I don't think so.
Why would anyone who was a stranger to her not simply walk (or run) away, the way almost all other murderers do when they kill a stranger in a crime of opportunity? It's much less risky for the killer that way--UNLESS the killer is someone the police know was an associate of the dead person.
Only 12 minutes available--if it really happened "as she walked the dog". How far away from home could this tired pregnant woman, who was having dizziness, trouble walking, etc., have really gotten in such a short time? And there were people all over Covena during the specified time.
Okay, if it didn't happen in the 12 minutes btw Scott's leaving and the dog's being found, then we could say she maybe walked the dog later, and got abducted/killed later?
Okay, but if it happened that way--if she was ripped away from her dog later than 10:18, then how did the dog end up back in the closed yard, wearing his leash? B/C that's how Scott says he found him.
If the abduction didn't happen in those 12 minutes, then what IS the explanation for their dog's being wandering out there with his leash on?
Suppose the dog had his leash on for whatever reason, got out, and got put back in, and Laci never walked him? But instead, suppose Laci just went out walking w/o the dog, later in the day? So she is abducted wearing the black pants/white shirt which Scott says she wore on the 24th, but her body turns up wearing TAN pants and NO shirt? And the shirt is found wadded up in a drawer? Does this mean Laci went out walking with no shirt??
And if they grabbed her, how is it that this "spitfire" (that's Geragos' assessment of her) was grabbed, but didn't scream, leave drag marks... how come no one heard screeching tires? How come no one saw it happen? It was daytime and most people were off work that day. And how come she'd have been out walking alone w/o her cellphone, pepper spray, and KEYS???
They were worried about bums going down their street, but she'd have gone out walking w/o her keys, meaning she'd have left a door open? Who in their right mind would do that, if they were worried about bums in their neighborhood?
Seriously, if you go over the possibilities, you'll be amazed at the results. I know I was.
Just believing is not enough, but based on your consideration of the evidence you are firmly convinced........
Definition of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.It is not required that the Government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt. The test is one of reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense--the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt must, therefore, be proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it unhesitatingly. Putting it in another way, a reasonable doubt means a doubt based on reason and not the mere possibility of innocence......................................................................................
As I have said many times, the Government has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Some of you may have served as jurors in civil cases, where you were told that it is only necessary to prove that a fact is more likely true than not true. In criminal cases, the Government's proof must be more powerful than that. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt. There are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. If, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you must find him guilty. If, on the other hand, you think there is a real possibility that he is not guilty, you must give him the benefit of the doubt and find him not guilty.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
They say if there are two reasonable explanations for something happening then you must give the defendant the benefit of the doubt.
So far I haven't found the explanations on the defendants behalf reasonable..............Spunky