"As they walked single file down a very narrow trail, defendant pushed Vanessa S. to the ground. He then fired the shotgun twice, first delivering a heavy buckshot blast into Christopher G.'s back, and then firing a lighter birdshot into Christopher G.'s knee."
- Alledged way the murder was committed (StaAll_06, p. 01)
The Murder And What Followed
Christopher G. was presumably killed in Uwharrie National Forest, North Carolina on the night of Friday, July 9th 1999. His body was found 2 days later on July 11th 1999. On July 18th, the police interviewed Robert J., the tenant of a trailer Christopher G. had used to stay at. The police learned that Christopher G. had left the trailer on Friday evening, accompanied by Scott and Vanessa S., Scott's girlfriend. About a year prior, Scott had fled from a work release program and so was already known to the police.
On August 10th, Vanessa S. went to the police and gave a statement in which she claims that Scott had killed Christopher G. and that she had been an eyewitness to the crime. She also told the police where to find Scott, at the residence of Kelly R., his new girlfriend for which he had just left Vanessa S. Two days later Scott was arrested, then indicted for first-degree murder in January 2000 and sentenced to death in November 2003. He has been incarcerated ever since, but has never stopped to maintain he is innocent.
Why A New Trial
No physical evidence for Scott's guilt has ever been presented and Vanessa S.' statement is plagued by a plethora of problems. It is inconsistent with crime scene evidence, it is inconsistent with other witness statements and it is inconsistent with her own later retellings of the story. She even bragged about having killed the victim herself. She also had a long history of mental illness and extreme substance abuse – and she had promised Scott and his new girlfriend to "make his life miserable" shortly before going to the police.
We are convinced that, at its core, this is what Scott's case really is about: A false witness statement that was taken at face value. A police investigation that was extremely poorly executed. A trial with the prosecution determined to get a win and a defense unable to point out any of the many issues with the case to the jury. And a system of appeals in which it can take decades to be heard and that is heavily biased against the defendant.
We will have look at all of these factors and present the available information as cleanly and accessibly as we can, so you can make up your own mind. Hopefully, we can convince you to join us in demanding that Scott is granted a new trial as soon as possible, so that a jury of his peers can decide on his guilt or innocence anew.
For more information on these topics click or tap the links below: