I don't convict people. Courts do. You answered your own question with number 4. The circumstantial evidence supports his guilt. I don't know if he did it or not. I kinda think he did. But I didn't listen to all the evidence and neither did you. The jury did and they made their decision. However, from what I heard on the news there was nothing that would have led me to a guilty verdict. Even though I think he did it there was no actual link to him and the murder. So he went fishing near where they found the body. He died his hair and had some cash on him. It was explained why he did it. I find it more than plausible that he did it as he said because he was being hounded by the media so why not take off for a while and change your look a little so you can have privacy. Actors do it all the time when out in public. They wear sunglasses and wigs and hats to hide who they are sometimes so they will be left alone. As for the cash, he had an excuse for that to. I don?t recall what it was but I remember thinking as long as he had a good reason for having it then it?s ok by me. The law shouldn?t be about we think, it should be about the facts. If he couldn?t come up with an answer for any of his actions then I would have taken the whole circumstantial thing more seriously. But, everything they threw at him he had an answer for. It?s just that the jury decided not to believe his answers.

But I think you're missing the point here. Evidence is evidence. If it wasn't it would be called something else. It doesn't matter what kind it is as long as it supports a conclusion of either guilt or innocence. If he had a better attorney he probably would have gotten off. All that needed to be done with this case was to just point out to jury that there is absolutely no solid evidence that he did it. There is just a bunch of drawn out conclusions based on the facts and that if you are going to consider the DA?s conclusion of the facts then you have to consider the defendants as well. But, Scott was fucked from the get go. He had the affair, Lacy was pregnant, there was no way he was gonna get off. The jury I believe had him guilty in their minds before the trial even began. I don?t agree with the verdict they made even though I do believe he is guilty. Court isn?t about the truth. It?s about looking at the facts and drawing a logical conclusion to them. Unfortunately you can?t expect too much from 12 people not bright enough to get out of jury duty in the first place.

hmm, "left wing bullshit", and then you say go Vote for Bushy...

In case you were smoking too much crack on this post, I thought i'd let you know Bush/republicans are the right wing, and democrats/liberals are considered the left wing.

Or the morning DEW

:glugglug

is that proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

I have a lot of cash and I dyed my hair, so I am guilty of murder?

every piece of evidence was circumstantial....so it was basically up to the moral indignation of the jury (or lack thereof)

FYI you can convict on circumstantial evidence if the combined weight of many pieces of evidence justifies it...

but at that point, it moves away from the realm of fact to the abyss of emotion...and the jury HATED this guy

i agree he wasnt convicted on much