I do think that this will be a major factor - and we don’t know what evidence exists. As you say, where was RA and RAs phone after 1:30 pm? And after 2:15pm? If there is evidence or no evidence (phone turned off) of RAs alibi it will be huge. As it stands I think there may still be some doubt but this could nail it.
And, as far as I know the D still haven’t been able to break alibis and put the alternates at the trails. And, even if they were there, RA could still be bridge guy if they can’t get him off the trails just after 1:30pm.
Edited to MOO
We don’t know but as girlhasnoname says above, he likely had a daily phone that he used regularly like most people. I think that phone can give us good data for the 13 Feb v other days in terms of usage and carrying it. If he left that one home or turned off and took a burner on that day that is interesting too. Ideally for RA his usual phone will be on trails until 1:30pm ish then track home or somewhere else entirely. Or he will have some other alibi.
IMO, we DO know that RA digital and DNA evidence
tying RA to the crime does NOT exist - per Ligget and Holeman depositions as described in the first FM. Were such evidence available, things would be more straightforward. The confirmation that inculpatory evidence from RA's phone data does not exist still leaves room for exculpatory evidence to exist on RA's phone data. (Neither side has addressed RA's phone data as exculpatory. Yet.)
So far, from information available to the public ... at this time:
This is a circumstantial case with charges brought via a proposed LE timeline built around a number of Monon high bridge trail witnesses reports, RA's self-report to the Conservation Officer (time stamps missing), information from Libby's phone, autopsies, forensics and other info from the crime scene including a recovered bullet casing that does not exclude RA's gun, and certain relevant items from RA's car/property search. Later, RA's solitary "safekeeping", as filings indicate, resulted in a number of RA statements against his interest - details unknown yet.
The State's case relies upon the impeachability of each factor in this circumstantial case and the admissibility and/or plausibility of the statements against interest. And, the state may more fact witnesses or expert testimony than has yet been disclosed.
The Defense have not disclosed RA's alibi(s) - digital or otherwise - if any, and - the last I looked - they were still sorting through and getting expert input on what they believe to be exculpatory evidence (digital and gps) not earlier shared by the State. The FM gives us hints that the Defense intends to dismantle the State's circumstantial case, timeline, bullet casing, witness inconsistencies, the State's lines of investigation in general, and expose coercion of RA's statements against interest. And will there be digital or GPS or 3rd party(s) evidence that rises to level of exculpatory as the Defense regularly asserts?
The Defense's case relies upon the ability to prove RA's actual timeline does not match the State's. And prove that the State and the digital/GPS evidence disagree, and that State evidence/witness testimony are inconsistent with the State's timeline, that RA does not match the profile for this crime. And/or that other more plausible persons (of interest) cannot be ruled out based on existing facts.
If ever this case gets to trial, I expect to be surprised by the many truths and facts still yet unknown that either party is holding back for trial.
Of course, I might have missed something above. And for sure, I'm inclined to have zero interest in speculative stuff. For me, if it's not on the record, it's irrelevant.
JMHO
