I’ve now watched the series and yes, I agree with you that it raises solid reasonable doubt. Scott is certainly a cad and I’m sure that his philandering and lying fueled his conviction. News sensationalism sealed the deal.

Whether he did it or not, it’s clear that the forensic evidence against him was scant to nonexistent. The police and prosecution wanted to convict him so badly that they went out of their way to hide or falsify exculpatory evidence. Why else would they alter the date of the burglary at the house across the street to 2 days after Laci’s disappearance when it happened (according to the homeowner) the morning of? When you’ve got the police gaslighting the homeowner, something is way off. If your house was burgled Christmas Eve I think you’d be pretty sure of the date.

I’m not convinced he’s innocent but I’m no longer certain of his guilt. It’s quite possible she confronted the burglars while walking her dog and they “disposed” of her. If so, Scott’s conviction only compounds a family tragedy.