I completely agree. The media had him guilty from day one - before even searching for evidence or bodies. (And we know how reliable the old media is!) But yes, it is scary how someone can be convicted on such slim circumstancial evidence. And after the judge conveniently removed 2 jurors who were likely leaning not-guilty. He is a reprehensible human being - but that shouldn't count for more than the lack of facts in this case. OJ was not guilty with tons of real evidence, Scott is guilty with very little......Scary is the word for it!
Thank you, I thought I was all alone on this thread. I guess I must be a horrible person because I do believe a person is innocent til proven guilty. There's lots of people on this thread that were on the threads right after she went missing. And they already had him tried and found guilty. I give up. I just hope none of these people are on a jury if I ever have to go on trial for something. God forbid.
So, if your wife turns up missing, and her body is found 80 miles away at the very same place you claim you were during the time she goes missing, we can just all assume you're innocent, right?
After you've checked the tides on the very day and at the very spot where YOU are and where her body shows up?
After you've made four or five anchors to use in a boat nobody else knows you have and you don't fish in -- that are missing now?
After you've told your new girl friend that your wife is dead two weeks before she goes missing?
After you've tried to sell your and your wife's home, fully furnished, before she's been missing a month?
We can just all assume it's your bad luck?