Steven Jacobson: When does no evidence = no guilt?
Day Two of Jacobson's testimony. When does no evidence = no
guilt? Apparently never, once a set of detectives make up their mind. Jacobson
conceded, under cross, that wiretaps are sought as a last resort -- when other
investigative procedures have produced no evidence and are not likely to produce
evidence. Persistence is often a virtue. These detectives persisted. They
obtained the wiretaps. They listened to 3000 calls. And they got nothing.
Nothing but a couple inconsequential lies.
And, we are not even sure they are lies. That charge is based upon where the LE believed Scott is physically located compared to where he said he was. Their belief is based in part on records that were never designed to identify a person's location with precision. Their belief is based on what usually happens with cell phone transmissions, not on what always happens. Their belief is based on seeing everything through the closed mind of he is guilty, not through an open mind.
Persistence ceases to be a virtue and becomes a menace when it refuses to see the truth. Could it be that they didn't find evidence in the house because Laci wasn't murdered or abducted from that house? Could it be that they didn't find evidence in the truck because Laci was not in that truck, either dead or alive, during the commission of any part of the crime? Could it be that they didn't find evidence at the warehouse because Laci was not at the warehouse, either dead or alive, during the commission of any part of the crime? Could it be that they didn't find evidence in the boat because Laci was not in the boat, either dead or alive, during the commission of any part of the crime?
If the total absence of evidence didn't convince them they were targeting the wrong person, the wiretaps should have. They yielded no evidence, much less a confession. Geragos asked Jacobson, In all the 3000 calls, did you ever hear him confess? No.
Jacobson revealed today that he remained convinced Amber was playing the police and suspected that she was involved until just last week. Buehler met with him and asked him what call made him suspicious of Amber. Jacobson said Buehler straightened him out about Amber. Well, well, well.
It would be nice if we could hear that call to determine for ourselves whether Jacobson should have changed his mind, or held fast to his original opinion. It would be nice if we at least knew the date of that call, because if it caused Jacobson to be suspicious, maybe it also caused Scott to be suspicious. It would be nice to place the call in the timeline of the other calls between Scott and Amber to see if a suspicious Scott offers a plausible explanation for some of his odd behavior.
Much of Scott's odd behavior is explained once we know the truth about the circumstances he was in at the time. Perhaps the rest of it could be satisfactorily explained by the contents of that single call that kept Jacobson convinced all this time that Amber was involved.