3 ms·

Well, he did do a good enough job of hiding the body. The evidence against him was circumstantial. Given what we know about his character, I have no trouble bel

by jarek 16y ago

Well, he did do a good enough job of hiding the body. The evidence against him was circumstantial. Given what we know about his character, I have no trouble believing he believed he could explain it away. People have been found not guilty due to reasonable doubt on evidence stronger than in his case.

jacquesm 16y ago
> The evidence against him was circumstantial. The evidence was actually pretty good. Yes, there was no body which makes it circumstantial but the total body of evidence was such that it would have been very surprising if he had walked. Car seats don't go 'missing' just like that, cars don't suddenly get flooded and large bloodstains do not suddenly appear, and definitely not all around the moment when a person suddenly disappears. Most explanations of these circumstances would stretch credulity considerably.