But... RA said he was there, at particular times (whether 1330 to 1530 or before 1330, still a debate), regardless of clothing, watching or looking at a stock ticker on his phone. So, IMO, whatever he was or was not wearing, he was there, with a phone, per his own statements. The phone should corroborate his story. And if his phone wasn't there, where was he or what phone did he have and where is THAT phone, or why is he claiming to be somewhere he wasn't watching stock tickers? Who cares what he was wearing? The color of the jacket shouldn't change whether HIS OWN story checks out or not.None of us know where he was. That’s why the cell phone data would be important. There’s a big distinction between eyewitnesses describing a man wearing (insert four different descriptions of an outfit) and actually “knowing” or identifying it as RA. We shouldn’t make that level of assumptions in court cases. That’s why we need real evidence to support that fact. MOO
JMO