This is where I'm hoping the P unveils some very strong evidence at trial. The PCA makes a lot of assumptions. I'm not saying they aren't compelling, and it was enough for probably cause, but I would like to see more, personally. There are no witnesses to a black Ford Focus, that we are aware of. There is a purple PT cruiser, a smart car, and HH footage of a vehicle that is "consistent" with RA's car driving by. It's not stated if there is footage of it even parking. Where was the light colored '65 Comet? BB's description of BG is about as accurate to RA as the Comet is to his Focus. Why didn't the PCA provide a description of the car BB saw parked oddly in the CPS lot? Was the car she described the Comet, or a different car? Why was the Comet omitted from the PCA? BB's the only witness who puts BG on the bridge in the moments before the girls got there, so it's important. JMO.
RA has placed himself on the trails at two different times, but without us being able to see the context of how he was asked the question on time, I don't feel comfortable making assumptions about that, either. And he said he saw three girls, but there were four girls who saw the man dressed in all black and/or jeans and blue jacket. Was there a group of three girls near FB around noon? It's just a nagging question in my mind.
Yes, I know all about how notoriously unreliable witness statements are, but the assumptions the P makes in the PCA are only that, an assumption, just like their assumption that the old farm bureau building is the CPS lot. I'd prefer more, which I hope the P will offer at trial. Likely, they have saved the best for last. Maybe the bullet evidence will be stellar. Or the confessions damning. Maybe the similar description of the clothing to what RA said he was wearing will be convincing enough. Perhaps there's solid digital or DNA evidence that the D is lying about there not being any. I truly do hope that, because I want them to have the right guy. I just don't want there to be any doubt. I so hope this.