If that is true, that she has nothing to prove it, doesn't that show that LE was not doing their job? After all, LE knew that JH was a possible child *advertiser censored* guy from Rod B's info.
So shouldn't LE have looked deeper than just to take Mom's word for it?
I know that the child *advertiser censored* had not been proven, but so what? LE is looking for anything hinky, so I would think they would check it out.
And if LE interviewed the neighbors, wouldn't they mention JH smoking and washing his car as the kids went by?
I'm trying hard to follow you here.
From what I understand, the Mother is saying NOW she is his alibi correct?
I'm sure LE is checking that out.
If she can't prove it, why would that mean Le was not doing their job?
I don't get it.
I don't think they ever took Mom's word for it.
Unless I'm missing something.
ETA: Noway pointed this article out to me this afternoon in another thread, and now I see what you are saying.
It seems LE did take their word for it in October. But, from what I read, they searched the house and found nothing out of the ordinary. So, at the time, they had no reason not to take their word for it. Nothing suspicious, mother vouching for him. IDK, I still think LE did a good job, and I think they thought the other guy did it, so JH was not really on their radar as much as the weird guy with the puppy. JMO
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/...-tells-cops-he-was-gano-avenue-home-day-somer
Snipped:
The records show detectives first interviewed Harrell on Oct. 30 in Somer’s case. He allowed them to search the home and property, but they spotted nothing suspicious.