So much is made, by those who believe Scott is guilty, that Scott lied so much how can anyone believe anything that he says. The truth of the matter is, we don't have to believe anything Scott says. We don't have to believe any one that has a vested interest in this case. We don't have to determine who is telling the truth and who isn't. We don't have to decide whose motives are pure and whose bias is objective.
Why? Because the forensic testing speaks loud and clear, and requires no interpretation, has no ulterior motive, and cannot be misunderstood.
It is not always the case that the forensic testing is so conclusive -- in some cases it still is very much subject to interpretation.
But, in this case, it is absolutely reliable.
Why? Because all of it contradicted the State's case. It was all collected by the State, controlled by the State, tested by the State, and reported by the State.
And all the tests came back NEGATIVE.
At every step of the way, those participating in its collection, testing, and reporting had a vested interest in the test results.
And all the tests came back NEGATIVE.
We don't have to take Scott's word for where he was on Dec. 24, and what time he was there, because he left a paper trail that proves, without bias, where he was and when.
We don't have to take Scott's word for why the mops and bucket were outside the door, or why anyone would be mopping the floor the day after the maid mopped, because the forensic testing proves with absolute certainty that the mops and bucket were not used to clean up a crime scene. That makes what they were used for totally irrelevant.
We don't have to understand why Scott washed his clothes or why and how they got wet, because the forensic testing proves with absolute certainty that he did not commit the crimes he was convicted of wearing those clothes. That makes everything else about the clothes totally irrelevant.
We don't have to understand why Scott was vacuuming on Dec 25, because the forensic testing proves with absolute certainty that the vacuum cleaner was not used to clean up a crime scene. That makes everything else about the vacuum cleaner or the vacuuming totally irrelevant.
We don't have to know where the pliers came from or how the hair got into them, because the forensic testing proves with absolute certainty that the pliers were not used to cut the chicken wire and had not been used recently enough to be involved in the crime. That makes everything else about the pliers and the hair totally irrelevant.
Everything that the state presented as evidence against Scott was inconclusive, subject to a range of interpretation; everything that was tested was absolutely conclusive that Scott did not murder Laci.
What was tested? Everything in that house that had the least hint of suspicion -- blood stains that they had to mark their location with sticky-notes because they were so small they wouldn't show up in the pictures. Everything in the pickup that had the least hint of suspicion. Everything in the boat that had the least hint of suspicion.
Besides collecting items for testing, cadaver dogs and scent dogs were used. Their results were inconclusive; most of it was not even allowed in as testimony it was so inconclusive. What was let in was contradicted with other dog testimony.
The State said Laci and Conner washed ashore, yet their own expert could not get them back to the same place, and the best dive and sonar teams could not find any evidence they had been where they should have been. So what difference does it make why Scott went fishing, or if he should have gone fishing, or what time of day he went fishing, or if he told some he was fishing and some he was golfing, because the State's own experts and other witnesses proved with a preponderance of the evidence that Laci was not where Scott was fishing.
So, when it gets right down to it, who cares whether Anne is telling the truth or Scott; whether Amber is telling the truth or Scott -- because the forensic testing proves that Scott did not murder Laci in that house or transport her in that pickup or boat, or dump her in the bay. The entirety of the forensic testing proves absolutely that Scott did not murder Laci in that house or transport her in that pickup or boat; and the preponderance of the evidence provided by the State itself proves that Scott did not dump Laci in the bay on that fishing trip.
All the accusations Anne Bird makes in her book, and all the heretofore secret documents that Catherine Crier cites in her book are meaningless as proof -- and no claims that Scott did this or that, or that his mother did this or that, can dispute the absolute certainty of the forensic testing.
Tell me why I should not place absolute trust in the forensic testing in this case to declare that Scott is 100% factually innocent of the crimes he has been convicted of. Give me one good reason why I should favor gossip over forensic testing.
This article is from the SII Editorials collection: http://www.pwc-sii.com/Research/editorials/tests.htm