I never followed this case except for watching a documentary. I am not sure, but I think it may have been on Netflix. I agree with your thinking on this. Why deny further testing if you are 200% certain that Scott is guilty. The same applies for Brendan Dassey and Steven Avery.
I used to whole heartedly believe he did it. Some people whose judgement I trust did some work regarding jury selection. They believe in his innocence. They reference the loading of her body onto the boat. They maintain that it would have been physically impossible to do what the prosecution said. Every now and again they bring it up as an example to something else. They have no doubt of his innocence. I have felt the same about another high profile case, because the suspect acted so suspicious. He was not convicted, I can’t remember if he was ever even tried. But based on his extremely sum suspicious behavior I thought he was guilty. He had not killed her, he was hiding other things that did come out in the investigation. Her murder was solved a few years ago, well after it occurred. It turned out to be some rando. His DNA from another crime pop up a match with her case. The victim was Chandra Levy, and the world suspected former Rep. Gary Condit.
That stunt with the boat on the A&E documentary about Scott is what I'm assuming you're referencing, and it was just that. It took them multiple attempts to get that boat to tip, but that's what they needed for their pro-innocence film. Then they'd leave out parts like when he bought it, he made sure that he prioritized it having a depth finder. He asked the guy he bought it from multiple times because he really wanted one for "fishing". The same guy who went "fishing" and never opened his gear. And as for Levy, the police were already aware of Condit's lack of involvement and then the actual killer Guandique's involvement as early as September of 2001. The same year she was murdered, just months later. They didn't have enough evidence at the time to prosecute, though. When they did he was subsequently arrested in 2009 and then went on trial in 2010. But man if that's only a few years ago to you, time must be moving awfully fast lol
I think I can explain some of it. If ANY of the new evidence is different than original, it allows for a retrial, or in some cases a case being thrown out and not allowed to be retried even if it comes back to him. The law is all about for lawyers, by lawyers, to lawyers. It does not make right or sense. We the masses have one definition of Justice, to others it is a category of legislation. I am not a lawyer, but I know there are exceptions, and state rules apply. At the end of the day any legit proof can be thrown out as non-applicable, based on lawyer, defense, and court negotiation. No side plays fair, except the losing one.
Why not let the innocent project test everything if the state really truly believed Scott is so guilty then you have nothing to hide I feel the like state hiding something if they wouldn’t give the innocent project everything to test
Because just like the Avery case, you have to follow the correct procedures, and there must be valid reasons to think that something new could be discovered from the testing. Otherwise, every single convict in prison will be wasting the justice systems time examining evidence over and over just in the hopes they make a mistake during testing and get set free on a technicality.
I agree. The police stated the robbery happened on a totally different day. Even the most stupid people wouldn't rob a house with film crews sitting outside.
The witnesses who allegedly saw her walking her dog after the reported time that Scott left her all described the clothes she was wearing in the missing posters put up after her disappearance. She was then later pulled from the Bay and she was not in fact wearing those same clothes. They saw what they wanted to see. Plus a $ sign with multiple zeroes.
I truly believe the innocent project took his case because they needed money to fight for real innocent people. I think they are just using him for the money and the publicity..
I believe Scott most likely did murder his wife but will say that there was a strong lack of any hard forensic evidence outside of circumstantial evidence brought before the court, I agree that if there is a question as to his guilt testing will only be incriminating or exculpatory as it would for Avery or Brendan. Unfortunately the State is very reluctant to just grant those incarcerated a new trial.
I feel his guilty… however if he is innocent, I hope they can prove it. It’s really sad how many innocent people sit in prison for crimes they didn’t commit of course look at Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey but there are a lot more people in prison that are innocent. it’s sad how many years it takes to be able to prove and free people. And I want a lot of documentaries and it’s great that DNA has been a great help over the past. I don’t know 20 years or so but a lot these cold cases they’re still trying to solve from 30-40 years ago and too many times innocent people are in prison. But yeah, from what I have seen on this case, and a lot has to do his behavior after… I feel like he’s guilty.
