Yeah it all doesn't stack up.
If there was a case against EF why would they not just take him down? He's the perfect suspect. Why would law enforcement try to protect him instead of closing the case and claiming the glory?
because:
1) at the time CCSO was focused on another theory (RL)
2) all focus on Libby's phone video and RL was a match
3) the EF lead came from outside CCSO and CCSO regularly kept outside support at bay
4) the team that worked the Rushville gang leads, passed them to CCSO ... and CCSO failed/chose not to follow up
5) CCSO rejected outside help and expertise when legions of help and high expertise was critically necessary.
6) the locals were (unwittingly) permitted to contaminate the crime scene.
pick one or all.
I have been struggling with these same questions. More recently, it became clearer to me the assumptions behind my analysis, behind my questions ... were incorrect.
For example. Your questions logically assume a standard LE environment.
But if we look back and form questions with the assumption that CCSO operated with the competence expected from a metro police organization - what if we're using the wrong filter? Using the wrong assumptions?
As discovery is revealed, it's being confirmed that assumed standards of competence and practice, the ability to team with outside experts and to take advantage of expertise
did not exist at Delphi/CCSO.
(IMO, we tend to make the same mistaken assumptions with the CC court in this case. )
I've grown weary of generosity towards CCSO's disaster of an investigation regarding those critical first days. IMO, CCSO (albeit unintentionally) failed A & L.
Delphi is a small town ... CCSO was not up to this herculean task (both re: forensics and leads) and was not open to expert help ... and so ... it is very frustrating but ... is what it is.
We no know that the investigation missed follow-through on critical leads handed to them in the first weeks, and destroyed taped interviews. And that this investigation failed to let the crime scene speak by blocking the experts that do "speak" crime scene, by failing to protect evidence and chains of custody, and by permitting site contamination.
JMHO
OK but then in order for your theory to work there has to be some kind of wider conspiracy that meant law enforcement avoided arresting one of the killers and instead hid his guilt
I think you need pretty clear evidence before anyone takes that as a serious thing
Carrying forward the idea that we might need to change our filter ... perhaps there need be no wider conspiracy. There is just incompetence and the inability to publicly acknowledge it. And the unspoken rule to avoid blowing mistakes in until absolutely necessary (deposition/testimony).
(The scale of incompetence is slowly coming out from ex-members of the larger command; it was bound to; they'll all be on the stand describing the incompetence ... because it's also their job to tell the truth under oath.)
for example: I'm LE in Rushville and I field local leads, do initial legwork and conduct and tape initial interviews of witnesses and possible suspects and lie detectors and alibis and collect phones and write search warrants for phones and put it all together in reports and pass them to CCSO and ... it is normal for me to think my work here is done and CCSO will follow-up.
The fact that CCSO never followed up - is something we've learned years into this case ... from depositions. That's doesn't need to be a conspiracy. That can just be weak police work.
JMHO
