FrostedGlass
Total Recall
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2017
- Messages
- 6,723
- Reaction score
- 32,362
MOOsure but he was investigated and they confirmed an alibi so that rules him out. what am i missing here?
i guess i am struggling with how alleged missing evidence can lead anywhere unless we are going to argue there is an intentional coverup. But that is a very heavy lift?
is that where you lean?
ETA: I am generally quite confused about the latest motion to dismiss and the first motion dismiss. When I followed that hearing, the defence came nowhere close to showing these guys were seriously in play. Of course that burden is tough if all the evidence was lost - but he does have a confirmed alibi so ....?
MOO
The alibi only says he didn't do it. It doesn't say he's innocent of being a part of it.
I've seen intentional coverups in Indiana exonerations so I'm not closed-minded to one in Delphi.
They are heavy lifts but they happened. See the Royer exoneration...there were suspects who admitted to murdering Helen Sailor.
We don't know how seriously these guys were in play. We haven't heard all of the Click story. Their story about visiting a friend in the hospital sounds unlikely.
I put weight on EF's story of being a part of this. However, one thing gives me pause: LE may have blown his testimony off if they knew the girls never crossed the bridge.