What was so obvious to our family seemed to evade some of the most sought after legal minds on television. These brilliant legal minds deduced that Scott must be guilty because there was no other logical explanation for how Laci and Conner could have been found at the bay unless Scott put them there. They scoffed at the idea that someone would plan to kill Laci and frame Scott, and they found it highly unlikely that if Laci were a random victim of murder that she would be coincidentally disposed of where her husband was fishing that day. Their theories seemed to focus on the assumption that Laci had been murdered on December 24th and her body disposed of the same day.
 
Had so much time gone by that no one remembered how quickly Scott's alibi had been publicized? Why were people assuming that she had been murdered on Christmas Eve? Why were people assuming her body was put in the bay on Christmas Eve? No one in our family felt it likely that someone premeditated Laci's murder with the intent to frame Scott. We also did not think it likely that someone had murdered her on Christmas Eve and coincidentally drove to the bay to dump her body. We saw other more logical options, but these seemed to escape discussion.
 
What was obvious to our family and friends was confirmed by countless others. One individual wrote our family and commented that when he heard Scott's Christmas Eve location publicized on TV he thought to himself, "The guy doesn't stand a chance now." Others yet called the Modesto Police tip line and indicated that publicizing Scott's whereabouts could result in the perpetrators dumping her body there in an effort to frame him.
 
The prosecution, in their rebuttal closing argument, argued that Laci would have to have been alive for a day for someone to take advantage of knowing Scott's alibi and dumping her in the bay. Is there some evidence that she was not alive December 25th? If she was killed on the 24th, is it not possible that her body could have been moved to the bay? The prosecution also asked, "Who would drive 90 miles to dump a body?", like it made total sense for Scott to drive 90 miles, but not anyone else. Well we would ask, "Would the sales manager of a fertilizer company, who knew the farm land of the central valley like the back of his hand, drive 90 miles to the busiest marina on the San Francisco Bay, where he'd never been before, go dump his pregnant wife's body out of a boat he'd never had in the water before in broad daylight? Or would someone who had the chance to get away with murder drive 90 miles to do so?"
 
The San Jose Mercury News reported on December 14, 2004 that Juror Greg Beratlis tried to grasp the defense theory that Peterson was framed, but he couldn't believe that any one else would have gone to such trouble to hide her body. Why is this so unbelievable? If someone is evil enough to commit murder, wouldn't they be evil enough to go to the trouble of blaming someone else?
 
Is that the real problem, that it's unbelievable? Well we'd have to agree. The last three years have been quite unbelievable. But why is it easier to believe that a man with no history of violence, much less anger, is capable of murdering his wife and unborn son and leaving no evidence than it is to believe that Laci was abducted and murdered?
 
Statistically, it is not likely that 1) someone with no history of anger or violence would commit this type of crime. And 2) it is not statistically likely that someone could commit this crime and leave no evidence in the home, the yard, the truck, the boat, the warehouse, or on himself and do it in broad daylight with no eye witnesses. What are the chances that both of these things could happen in the same crime? If you are one to focus on statistics, Scott would be the least likely suspect.

There is much evidence associated with Laci and Conner's bodies that suggests Scott is innocent, but we will address that in later issues. The one thing we want to point out in this issue is that Laci was alive Christmas Eve morning and was found dead on the shoreline on April 14th. Where she was in between those dates and how she and Conner got where they were is unknown. The medical examiner, Dr. Peterson, estimated she had been dead �months�, placing Laci's time of death between December 24th, 2002 and mid February 2003.
 
The search for Laci's body in the San Francisco Bay did not result in the bay being secured as a crime scene. Countless people were free to come and go from the bay at all hours of the day and night. Meanwhile, Scott's alibi and the fact that the bay was being searched was publicized almost daily. There was ample opportunity to place their bodies in the water or along the shoreline. So we submit to you:
 

ScottPetersonAppeal.Org