i agree
i agree
there`s no direct evidence..but there`s a mountain of circumstantial evidence pointing at ole` scotty....
the fact that he told some people he was fishing the day of the disappearance and others that he was golfing....
the fact that the wife and child were found in the same area that scott was fishing.....(or golfing...lol)
the beard,phony papers and $10,000 they found with him as he headed for the mexican border....i don`t care what any sharp lawyer says,that`s not what a husband does when his wife is missing or found murdered and he`s innocent....
and that`s just a smidgeon of it....the affair...his telling the girlfriend that he`d be unattached in a month....
all these can be rationalized to a gullible group of jurors by some slick talking lawyer...
but collectively,i`d say the evidence that i`m aware of is pretty damning....
now i`m hearing that geragos is saying that the child was born before the murders were committed...he`ll have an "expert "testify to that fact....and the prosecution will have an "expert" testify to the contrary....
they`re both "experts"....and both will testify "expertly" to diametrically opposing points of view...because they are getting paid to....obviously "expert" means you can testify to whatever theory the money points you toward....
they`ll try and say that the police screwed up....publicity seekers and nut cases will come forward claiming to be witnesses...
let the circus begin.....geragos,you greek whore,muddy the waters....create as much confusion as possible......
be a good lawyer
