There's little room for doubt that what we, the public, know at the moment is not enough to convict Scott.
Four things that we do know, however, definitely point towards his guilt:
1. The bodies turned up right near the place he said he visited on the 24th. Witnesses can place him at that place, but apparently none of them can say how long he was really there.
2. His strange behavior--and it was VERY guilty-looking--after the fact.
3. The fact that one phone tap caught him saying to Amber, "I didn't do it, but I know who did, and I'll tell you when we're together later."
4. There seems to be no other suspect for whom a link with Laci can be discerned.
The first three of the above can be proved and admitted in court (with some limitations on proof of his behavior after the fact). That last one is a common sense thing; it would not be valid as a showing of guilt, I don't think. It's more something for the prosecution to save for their argument.
You say it's possible that Laci left the house on her own in the morning, and was dragged into a vehicle later that day. I agree; I think that's possible, too. Furthermore, it's also possible that the person who dragged or enticed her into a vehicle was Scott. There is nothing we know of to prove that he was in the bay all day. We don't even really know when he first left the house that day. We have only his statements (contradictory) to go on.
Originally we heard that he'd said he left the house at 9:30 and driven to Berkeley. So we sat around thinking, then he must have arrived at Berkeley no earlier than 11:00.
Then we heard that he'd said something different later. We heard that he'd changed, and said he went to his warehouse after leaving his house at 9:30, and had worked for a couple of hours.
We know he called the Rochas, presumably from the house, at about 4:45 p.m. Certainly the Rochas and the phone records will tell us eventually the exact time that call was made, and whether it definitely originated at his house.
So if he called the Rochas from the house at 4:45, then he has to have left Berkeley (whatever time he really got there) by 3:15 p.m.
We have consistently heard that no one living knew ahead of time that he was going fishing on the 24th. In fact, we have recently heard that he told Amy Rocha (when he saw her in late afternoon at the hair salon) that he had an 8:00 tee time the next day (the 24th) at the local golf course.
Earlier, there was a story that someone saw Scott in the Berkeley area in the early morning hours of Dec. 24th--during the night, really, that is, no later than 3:00 a.m.
Given the contradicting stories about what he did that day/what he planned for that day, it's possible that he did the murder and disposed of the body, all between 8:30 p.m Dec. 23 (when Laci's mother last spoke to her by phone) and about 3:00 a.m. on the 24th.
This would then leave him free to drive to Berkeley, maybe make a cursory show of going fishing, then drive back and raise the alarm.
Four things that we do know, however, definitely point towards his guilt: 1. The bodies turned up right near the place he said he visited on the 24th. Witnesses can place him at that place, but apparently none of them can say how long he was really there.
2. His strange behavior--and it was VERY guilty-looking--after the fact.
3. The fact that one phone tap caught him saying to Amber, "I didn't do it, but I know who did, and I'll tell you when we're together later."
4. There seems to be no other suspect for whom a link with Laci can be discerned.
As true as #1 is, I doubt that LE can place the time of submergence of the bodies any closer than two weeks. If someone else did it, the bay would become the obvious dumping point.
As for #2, I only had to read the story of Sam Sheppard once to realize how LE can absolutely devastate a man's life after a trajedy perpetrated by someone else.
If my wife is ever the victim of any crime, I am going to insist on every constitutional right I have. Sam Sheppard was a well respected doctor, a man of means and position in his community and LE cut him down wrongfully despite all the "advantages" that his education and position should hve given him.
As for #3, Scott is a known liar and braggard. This is completely in character.
As far as I can see, there really isn't any hard evidence, which has come to the attention of the public, making this an open-and-shut case.
In fact, for every accusation there is a perfectly innocent explanation. Why do we need so many explanarions? Well, if LE was scrutinizing my life for a given period and every time I satisfied them on some point, they came up with another accusation there would be a lot of accusations and misinterpretations.
I am not saying he is innocent, but there is no hard evidence of guilt as you correctly state.
we have recently heard that he told Amy Rocha (when he saw her in late afternoon at the hair salon) that he had an 8:00 tee time the next day (the 24th) at the local golf course.
Who among us has never lied to an in-law?