lolli
New Arrival
Posts: 9
|
Post by lolli on Apr 2, 2007 11:01:13 GMT -5
I am a strong believer in Scott's innocence but I have a question for anyone who can remember this. What was the explanation as to why Scott had the boat at home that morning that he "supposedly" transported her body to the bay. What was the defense answer to this? He normally kept the boat at the wherehouse so why did he have it at home to begin with? Why didnt he just go that morning and pick it up and go to the Bay to fish? I cant seem to remember that? If he wasnt planning on using it to transport what did he say he was doing with it at home? I know he mentioned wanting to take the market umbrellas to the wherehouse in the truck but cant remember what the reason was for the boat being at the house at all?
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Apr 2, 2007 11:06:42 GMT -5
... He normally kept the boat at the wherehouse so why did he have it at home to begin with? ... He didn't. The boat was never at the house, according to the prosecution. If he had wanted to move a body, it would have been far more sensible to tow the boat to the house and put the body in it there than to put it in the truck, then transfer it at the warehouse out in the street where someone might come by. But the whole prosecution case made no sense. |
|
lolli
New Arrival
Posts: 9
|
Post by lolli on Apr 2, 2007 15:20:50 GMT -5
thanks I cant believe I forgot that?  I was involved so much in this case just because something didnt set right with me. I cant believe I had a mental block on that one. I think Im just totally overloaded! So much has bothered me about this. The Aponte tapes from the prison was my main one and then the fact that he went on the computer supposedly to make it look like she was on it but was dumb enough to look up other stuff that some are saying it was incriminating? and the whole secret purchase of the boat is a joke because in my marriage if I was ready to have a baby and it was Xmas etc I would never tell my family that my husband made a stupid purchase like that. The fact that she could have known about that boat makes total sense to me! Also the tip they got in the beginning about that place in Tracy but because it was "too dangerous" they didnt pursue it? those things alone woudl have made me totally unsure about this. Not to mention so many other things. I just hope that the truth comes on on this that the real people come clean some day. I just find it inbelieveable what this jury convicted someone to death by. |
|
|
|
Post by 4justice2 on Apr 4, 2007 11:53:32 GMT -5
The remaining members of that jury who convicted with no physical evidence had been conditioned to disregard any and all other possible suspects. This was a result of the freak show put on daily by CTV's Nasty ::)Grace and others of her ilk.
LE's admittance to not following up on the Tracy tip, alone, should have been cause for acquittal.
|
|
lolli
New Arrival
Posts: 9
|
Post by lolli on Apr 4, 2007 17:53:40 GMT -5
unfortunately, I dont think he stood a chance when there was people like Nancy and people outside of the courtroom and all the articles that you know that jury somehow got ahold of the info from. Can you imagine what the outcome would have been if they aquitted him or it was a hung jury? those people would have been verbally tortured etc. I honestly think they let the media control the outcome. I can understand being afraid to be the lone "innocent" on that jury but I could not have lived with myself if I had convicted a man to death with such little evidence. There were just too many "what ifs?" There were things that did bother me, thinking that maybe he did do it. Shoot, sometimes now I think I am just not seeing something and wanting him to be innocent but then I am right back to the situations like the computer use for the gap, umbrella stand, pregnant woman in Tracy, Aponte tip, just the common "why would you tell the location of where you were if you had just dumped a body"? Why would you be that dumb to do that when there are so many other ways he could have dealt with her and then........ gone fishing? ? it just doesnt add up and I cant figure out why they were so sure about this? and that not one time did he falter in his 3,000 + conversations with Amber. He kept denying it and saying how could you think I could do this etc....... if he was dumb enough to place himself at the scene of the crime why would he smart enough for all this other stuff? |
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Apr 23, 2007 17:43:02 GMT -5
The remaining members of that jury who convicted with no physical evidence had been conditioned to disregard any and all other possible suspects. This was a result of the freak show put on daily by CTV's Nasty Grace and others of her ilk. LE's admittance to not following up on the Tracy tip, alone, should have been cause for acquittal. Not much different from the case of Eric Volz: www.friendsofericvolz.com/ |
|
lulu
Settlin' In
Posts: 29
|
Post by lulu on Apr 27, 2007 15:25:04 GMT -5
I am a strong believer in Scott's innocence but I have a question for anyone who can remember this. What was the explanation as to why Scott had the boat at home that morning that he "supposedly" transported her body to the bay. What was the defense answer to this? He normally kept the boat at the wherehouse so why did he have it at home to begin with? Why didnt he just go that morning and pick it up and go to the Bay to fish? I cant seem to remember that? If he wasnt planning on using it to transport what did he say he was doing with it at home? I know he mentioned wanting to take the market umbrellas to the wherehouse in the truck but cant remember what the reason was for the boat being at the house at all? The boat was never at his home it was at the warehouse, he didn't even decide to go fishing til after he went to the warehouse got his e-mail answered his boss , put together the mortizer, then decided to hook up his boat forgetting to take out the umberallas. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Apr 28, 2007 11:20:59 GMT -5
The boat was never at his home it was at the warehouse, he didn't even decide to go fishing til after he went to the warehouse got his e-mail answered his boss , put together the mortizer, then decided to hook up his boat forgetting to take out the umberallas. That's a good point. Was there any evidence that he decided before he got to the warehouse that he was going to play with the boat that day? |
|
I was involved so much in this case just because something didnt set right with me. I cant believe I had a mental block on that one. I think Im just totally overloaded! So much has bothered me about this. The Aponte tapes from the prison was my main one and then the fact that he went on the computer supposedly to make it look like she was on it but was dumb enough to look up other stuff that some are saying it was incriminating? and the whole secret purchase of the boat is a joke because in my marriage if I was ready to have a baby and it was Xmas etc I would never tell my family that my husband made a stupid purchase like that. The fact that she could have known about that boat makes total sense to me! Also the tip they got in the beginning about that place in Tracy but because it was "too dangerous" they didnt pursue it? those things alone woudl have made me totally unsure about this. Not to mention so many other things. I just hope that the truth comes on on this that the real people come clean some day. I just find it inbelieveable what this jury convicted someone to death by.