[Josh in PA]

I believe you.

I think he'll get off.. either in this one or the next one.

The hard evidence isn't there. It's mostly just emotional and "Scott's a scumbag" evidence.

I am 99.99% sure he did it.. but I'm also about 80% sure that he'll get off.

[xsrdx]

Everybody keeps citing the "circumstantial" evidence in this case, but even that evidence is weak, weak, weak.

The prosecutions basic assertion is that SP is a scumbag, and his wife is dead, ergo, he did it. Oh, and he has a boat, and his wife was found in the water.

Did he do it? Heck yes, probably so. But you can't convict somebody based on what amounts to total speculation.

Just ask OJ.

Maybe he and SP can start up a new PI business, to look for the "real killers".

[spectre]

"I am 99.99% sure he did it.. but I'm also about 80% sure that he'll get off."

IF you are almost 100% sure he did it, then there was enough circumstantial and consciousness of guilt evidence to convince you. So why should the Jury think any differently? The jury may be hung, but Scott won't go home..

sw

[Doctor Stochastic]

Guilt is rather often determined by the likability of the defendant, not the evidence.