I just wanted to throw my opinion in here as someone from the outside not even having heard of either party until a couple months ago.
As far as the fake hets go I would say if someone actually has evidence of them being sold and it not having been made right, they should start a new thread so it doesn't get lost in this one.
Well Scotts lawyer who often took his cues from the states lawyer cause he had absolutely no substance to Scotts defense said "We are an INCESTUOUS community" HA!!!!:
That statement actually does work if he intended it to be taken in this manner:
being so close or intimate as to prevent proper functioning: an incestuous relationship between organized crime and government.
from dictionary.com
Now I don't know if he meant it that way or not and given the other things I've read and heard about Scott's lawyer, I'm not so sure he did.
Which brings me to the actual case and my worries about it. Did Scott buy a stolen animal? Obviously. Did he know who it was stolen from? Almost certainly. Did he know exactly what morph it was? More than likely. But there's a few problems with this case that I'm afraid a good lawyer would be able to take advantage of.
Please correct me if anything I state is incorrect. The victim of the crime was used as an "expert witness" in the trial. Now from what I understand is that this was allowed because the victim was one of the only people with full knowledge of this morph, yet it was contended at trial that since Scott saw it on Nerd's website that he knew exactly what he was buying. I'm sorry but I don't think you can really have that both ways.
Then two of the witnesses that helped convict him don't exactly appear to have pure motives. One was the person that actually committed the theft and received a lesser sentence for pleading out and testifying. Please stop saying that he admitted to doing something wrong and felt bad about it, he only feels bad that he was caught. Let's be honest if he hadn't been caught on tape I highly doubt he would have admitted to anything. Then the second witness, a former employee of Scott's that from what I understand received a job from Nerd before Scott was even convicted. I'm not saying he did anything wrong at all or that he isn't a good guy but it just doesn't look good.
Then there's Scott's lawyer. All I will say is if you are happy that Scott was convicted, I wouldn't talk about how his lawyer contributed nothing to his defense. Ineffective council is as good a reason as any to have a conviction set aside.
I am positive Scott is guilty of something but as is almost always the case, I don't think either side is being completely honest.