"If you think about it, why would a stranger go to all the trouble to drive 90 miles to hide her body????? A stranger who murders doesn't need to hide the body."
If you think about it, a stranger who murders has just as much reason to hide the body as an intimate who murders: so as not to get caught, tried, convicted, and punished.
And dumping the body at the location where another suspect's alibi has been made known publicly makes it likely that he, rather than you, will be tried for the crime.
There is no evidence to eliminate Laci's body having been dumped in the bay on any day following her Christmas disappearance by someone else.
In essence, if anyone other than Scott Peterson killed Laci, the single-minded media and prosecutors who were focused only on Scott Peterson gave the killer an easy way never to get caught: dump the body where the media reported Scott said he was fishing ther day Laci disappeared.
And darned if that might not have worked beautifully.
And, just what would the strangers motive be? There was no plea for money, there was no robbery, her purse, wallet etc. were still at home. Usually there is a reason to murder someone. So, the stranger had to drive 90 miles & have access to a boat, just to set up Scott, but why?
The meaning of reasonable doubt can be arrived at by emphasizing the word reasonable. It is not a surmise, a guess or mere conjecture.1 It is not a doubt suggested by counsel which is not warranted by the evidence.2 It is such a doubt as, in serious affairs that concern you, you would heed; that is, such a doubt as would cause reasonable men and women to hesitate to act upon it in matters of importance.3 It is not hesitation springing from any feelings of pity or sympathy for the accused or any other persons who might be affected by your decision. It is, in other words, a real doubt, an honest doubt, a doubt that has its foundation in the evidence or lack of evidence.4 It is doubt that is honestly entertained and is reasonable in light of the evidence after a fair comparison and careful examination of the entire evidence.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt; the law does not require absolute certainty on the part of the jury before it returns a verdict of guilty. The law requires that, after hearing all the evidence, if there is something in the evidence or lack of evidence that leaves in the minds of the jurors, as reasonable men and women, a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, then the accused must be given the benefit of that doubt and acquitted.5 Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that precludes every reasonable hypothesis except guilt and is inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.6
Except for the fact that the bay was being watched 24/7!
Big flaw in your "plot," there, buddy.
The gestational age of the baby at death is December 23 or 24; the press didn't "report" where Scott had been fishing until after the first of the year.
So it appears that, according to your story, Scott Peterson is the unluckiest person on earth: not only is he completely innocent of the murder of his wife and child of which he has now been convicted, but unfortunately for him, the "real" killers managed to "find" the exact place he told the police he had been fishing that day and dump the bodies there.