Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Skunk · 11-13-2003, 07:21 AM

So basically we have a circumstantial case? Is this all they have??

"he was having an affair with Amber Frye"
Many men have affairs without murdering their wives.

"he had a boat about which other family members were unaware"
We're talking about the extended family of course - his close family (wife and daughter may well have known about it).

"he had a secret mailbox for correspondence rented the day Laci disappeared"
With the way that some reporters behave, combined with the possible filtering by police officers keen to prove the 'husband did it' theory, that's not unreasonable. In any event, renting a post-box is not a sign of guilt.

"the house was clean when police first arrived to investigate her disappearance",
Gosh! What? A man who does housework? How un-natural - must be a murderer then!
On the other hand, many people under stress look for something to do to occupy themselves - bet the stress of my family dissappearing would leave my own home spotless!

"he asked about "cadaver dogs" only 1 day into the search for Laci"
So he feared the worst? And?

"he sold Laci's car not long after she disappeared"
Maybe they had agreed that?

"he dyed his hair blonde, had a fake ID, $10,000 cash, and a rented car only 20 miles from the border with Mexico"
Adulters do all sorts of things to cover their infidelity.

"Scott claims that Laci walked the dog while he went fishing...on Christmas Eve the body of an adult female and infant washed up less than 2 miles from the spot where Scott claims he was fishing."
So they both like recreation activities by the lake - this does not suggest anything either.

"despite the fact that in many cases when a murder victim is married the spouse is the murderer.
Oh well, he must be guilty then.

"Of course, DNA testing of a hair found in Scott's boat and the bodies that washed onto shore has been questioned in great detail."
So they found hair in the family boat? Could it be because the family used it?

Maybe the wife never wanted Scott to buy a boat, but he did anyway (in secret) - then later 'owned up' and took her out in the boat in an attempt to make her see how nice it was to own one?

Where is the *hard* evidence in this case?

[ 11-13-2003, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

11-13-2003, 07:21 AM	#5
Skunk Banned User Join Date: September 3, 2001 Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands Age: 63 Posts: 1,463	So basically we have a circumstantial case? Is this all they have?? "he was having an affair with Amber Frye" Many men have affairs without murdering their wives. "he had a boat about which other family members were unaware" We're talking about the extended family of course - his close family (wife and daughter may well have known about it). "he had a secret mailbox for correspondence rented the day Laci disappeared" With the way that some reporters behave, combined with the possible filtering by police officers keen to prove the 'husband did it' theory, that's not unreasonable. In any event, renting a post-box is not a sign of guilt. "the house was clean when police first arrived to investigate her disappearance", Gosh! What? A man who does housework? How un-natural - must be a murderer then! On the other hand, many people under stress look for something to do to occupy themselves - bet the stress of my family dissappearing would leave my own home spotless! "he asked about "cadaver dogs" only 1 day into the search for Laci" So he feared the worst? And? "he sold Laci's car not long after she disappeared" Maybe they had agreed that? "he dyed his hair blonde, had a fake ID, $10,000 cash, and a rented car only 20 miles from the border with Mexico" Adulters do all sorts of things to cover their infidelity. "Scott claims that Laci walked the dog while he went fishing...on Christmas Eve the body of an adult female and infant washed up less than 2 miles from the spot where Scott claims he was fishing." So they both like recreation activities by the lake - this does not suggest anything either. "despite the fact that in many cases when a murder victim is married the spouse is the murderer. Oh well, he must be guilty then. "Of course, DNA testing of a hair found in Scott's boat and the bodies that washed onto shore has been questioned in great detail." So they found hair in the family boat? Could it be because the family used it? Maybe the wife never wanted Scott to buy a boat, but he did anyway (in secret) - then later 'owned up' and took her out in the boat in an attempt to make her see how nice it was to own one? Where is the hard evidence in this case? [ 11-13-2003, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]