Background noise level. Relevance. Wheat versus chaff. The defense is just playing for one or two confused jurors who can’t hear the signal over the noise. You appear to want it handed them on a platter before the trial begins.
I believe in due process and a fair trial so I believe that the jury should be aware of the entire investigation including a man confessing to the crime with details “only the killer would know” before the girls were even found. That’s a really important event to me. If the case against RA is so solid, it should stand up to the jury knowing about all exculpatory evidence/the original investigation. MOO
I’d be interested if we would be able to find someone with legal experience who would agree about this “lack of integrity”. I have yet to see a real lawyer disagree with the defenses representation.
Murphy says in episode Part 3 - I will link the actual episode: "he thought EF and his sister were full of crap" (his words), they interviewed him and got a DNA sample. Murphy drove him back home and that was when EF mentioned he spit on one of the girls.
Some people might actually bring him along just to see if he would follow through with the plan out of curiosity and as a form of “gang initiation” (for lack of a better word). If he was struggling with socializing and wanted to fit in with some big group of people for whatever reason, then they may have just let him come along. I am NOT saying this happened but I can see how this COULD happen to a person with a lower mental capability. MOOO.
I linked to a secure definite site.
No way to know.
Oh… I guess they only report on the cross examination ? This is the second time I’m hearing them just reporting on the short cross examination and not any of the direct. The first being the geofencing. They only included Nicks short objection and none of the actual testimony or information shared.
I agree with some of your points, but credible doesn’t mean factual. It means believable. Her story is believable and she was seen on the camera when she said she was there which is good! But if the guy isn’t also on the camera, then I wonder why not? Could she have mixed up her dates? Could he have hidden just out of sight of that camera? Was the guy she saw too much in shadow for the camera to pick him up by chance? Credible is a good start but is not evidence that: the guy she saw killed the kids, or that she saw him on the day she said she did. I’m sure her story will line up with whatever other evidence LE has - hopefully they did a fantastic job of interviewing her and getting her statement!
Stupid question coming up... I've been wondering for a long time about EF saying he spit on one of the girls, yet we never heard there was a DNA match for him or an arrest. So my question is... do they automatically swab a victims entire body for DNA? Or only a few spots here and there? If not 100% of a victims body... perhaps the area(s) they swabbed didn't have EF's spit on it, hence it not showing up.
It’s their friend. If they all wanted to join a gang and have brothers, they would all go together. Robert Pickton argued “diminished mental capacity” defense as well and no one excuses his murders. MOO
I had an idea that the spit is why the clothes ended up in the river.
And it will when the TRIAL starts, not now before trial in social media or by the doo process gang and internet cranks. The only noise we're hearing is from the crazy antics around the D side of the equation. The State has kept a tight lid on their case as they should and per the gag order.
I guess it’s just my assumption that if they had more video of this guy, they would release it to the public to try to find him. Especially if this camera could be clear enough to pick up license plate numbers etc. That would be an additional video for the public to help identify him. MOO
Pretty sure if a potential POI professed to spitting on one of the victims they would have swabbed her entire body.
Is it possible that EF got lucky that his DNA wasn’t found on the bodies? Is it possible it was washed off by a deliberate wash off or by the weather elements? Lack of DNA at the scene doesn’t mean someone who places themselves there was not there. In fact, actual dna evidence at the scene doesn’t always mean an accused was the killer! Just ask Germany: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7966641.stm
This is pre-trial when the trial is organized. That’s why they had the hearings to discuss what would and wouldn’t be allowed at trial. You don’t hold everything back until trial to ambush the other side.
Your post made me wonder- if she had called in a muddy / bloody guy immediately after having seen him, would police be all over it that night especially knowing the kids were missing from that area? Would they have called off the search that night? Would they have brought in dogs to track the kids? Of course we don’t know the answers because hindsight tells us all the things we wish they’d done / not done that night. It just does not SEEM like she alerted LE that night due to these things. MOO.
