We don’t even know if BG was the one carrying the gun or if one exists. All we know is that a person wearing jeans is videotaped walking, tiny blurry image, the camera goes down but audio keeps rolling,
LE thinks they hear the word “gun”. Could that be “that guy is a weirdo, I wish we had a gun” or “oh, he has a gun”. We haven’t heard.
Muddy turned into bloody, so I’m hesitant to believe context without hearing it myself.
Contrary to the patchwork PCA, I don’t think BG is “seen and heard” saying down the hill. If true (and I don’t think it is) that would up close and give a way better image to share with the public. IMO a man’s voice is heard, we don’t know if it’s BGs or someone else who came up from the private drive.BG could be an accomplice and someone else did the actual murders. There’s allegedly no direct evidence linking anyone to the crime scene, even with that very involved staging.
And the bullet. How do we know it’s connected to this crime? IMO It was found buried in the ground near the crime scene. IMO It could dropped by one of the hundreds of people wearing guns who tromped through there over the years or carried through the silt in freshet.
There’s too many other options and explanations for me and no real evidence to back up the Ps claims. I think that this crime doesn’t match the prosecutions timeline at all, way too much to do in like 45 minutes and then the walk back to the car for 3:30. I think more than one person is involved (and so did LE). I think RAs charges still include accomplice liability?
I’ll be interested to see what type of evidence comes up at trial. From what I’ve been reading the P’s entire case pivoted from the actual crime into focusing on the “incriminating statements”. I’d prefer they focus on proving the crime actually did occur in the manner they claim via real evidence first.