Replies

It strikes me as the perfect detail SP would invent to support his initial story to police that he last saw his wife at 9:30am on Christmas Eve as she was preparing to walk the dog.

The purpose was to convince the police that an abduction had taken police when in fact the actual crime scene had been in the house. Had the police discovered that the dog was in the house when Scott "returned" they would naturally assume that Laci had been abducted from within the house, at least initially.

Scott assumed incorrectly that the police would spend days combing the surrounding neighborhoos attempting to locate the site of the abduction (and not his house) when in fact they suspected his involvement from the start and were not about to overlook her home as a potential crime scene.

Well, it is the perfect detail, because it is very credible and humanizing.

But does SP have this kind of criminal IQ, to have thought that out, because inspired ideas like that don't occur in crimes of passion.

I find it fascinating to contemplate.

Add to my previous post.

Would a person capable of plotting out such an elegant supporting detail, make such a stupid mistaken assumption that LE would not follow basic procedures and treat the home as a possible crime scene or look hard at the spouse in the possible murder of the missing wife?