I had forgotten they saw his car on CCTV arriving at 1.27pm which is hilarious that he then changed his story as how could he have left the trails before he even arrived? That’s certainly a new one on me!!
Moo
Moo
I believe we were waiting on rulings on the open issues.
“Gull heard from the defense and prosecution as she weighed multiple issues ranging from the defense’s alternate murder theory to the admissibility of reported confessions Allen made in captivity.”
The car sightings are slightly problematic for me. All three occurred between 2:10, 2:14 and 2:28.
It seems they have no sightings before or after. I'm not sure how they will get around that.
The 2:14 was BB; the names of the other two are redacted in this document.A vehicle similar to RA's Ford 2016 is caught on video at 1:27 pm which fits in perfectly with the time RA claims he was there which was around 1:30 pm.
The minors saw the creepy man around 1:26 pm based on the photo one of them took which would likely have the date and time on it.
If the vehicle really is that of RA's and he was driving by at 1:27 pm and the minors really did see a creepy man on the trail around 1:26 pm - then the creepy man and RA can't be the same and one.
I take it the video footage doesn't show plate numbers just vehicles as they pass by left or right.
Who saw the vehicle at 2:10 pm, 2:14 pm and 2:28 pm?
I think that information wasn't presented at this hearing.
Recall, that it went quite long on the third and final day. My guess, time constraints were real.
Moreover, in that context (of the hearing), the State was responding to a specific representation of the Defense to which their expert responded. It would have taken hours IMO for him to break down all of the digital analysis which will umdoubtedly occur at trial.
I think the State is holding back their case in chief.
JMO
IMO, it’s about a 10 minute drive. “Give or take a few minutes” does a lot of work in that timeline. If they left the house at 1:35 (1:30 plus a few minutes), that puts them there at 1:45. If they encountered traffic, a slow driver, drove slowly themselves, that easily puts them there after BB arrived. I don’t think a couple of minutes in this particular timeline is any kind of exculpatory when RA himself initially stated he was there from 1:30 forward.
MOO
A vehicle similar to RA's Ford 2016 is caught on video at 1:27 pm which fits in perfectly with the time RA claims he was there which was around 1:30 pm.
The minors saw the creepy man around 1:26 pm based on the photo one of them took which would likely have the date and time on it.
If the vehicle really is that of RA's and he was driving by at 1:27 pm and the minors really did see a creepy man on the trail around 1:26 pm - then the creepy man and RA can't be the same and one.
I take it the video footage doesn't show plate numbers just vehicles as they pass by left or right.
Who saw the vehicle at 2:10 pm, 2:14 pm and 2:28 pm?
I just posted a map right after you posted this. It really shows just how short the trail section was. I have All Trails, which is a hiking app that shows trails and allows people to post photos of the trail and give reviews, plus shows distance and elevation, etc. The trail from Freedom Bridge to MHB is .8 one way. So if someone parked at Freedom Bridge and walked to MHB and back it's 1.6 miles. We know BB parked across from Mears Farm which is less than half of that. She says she walked only toward MHB and then back to her car. So I bet her walk was maybe .3 or .4 one way from the parking lot to MHB and then .3 or .4 back to her car. IT wasn't far at all so the window seems small to see the girls.I could see it being open to challenge exactly where the witness saw the victims on her return leg, but it is hard to see it being challenged that she did in fact see them, somewhere on her return.
Also, as the respective cars were seen by the same camera, even if camera time is a bit different to phone time, it is still internally consistent.
It is likely the camera and phone time were a bit different. Especially the HH Store camera, which probably wasn't perfectly calibrated and synchronized with an atomic clock. The HH Store would never have imagined their camera would become a key part of evidence in a murder trial.I could see it being open to challenge exactly where the witness saw the victims on her return leg, but it is hard to see it being challenged that she did in fact see them, somewhere on her return.
Also, as the respective cars were seen by the same camera, even if camera time is a bit different to phone time, it is still internally consistent.
More secrecy. Which motion is this?
It is likely the camera and phone time were a bit different. Especially the HH Store camera, which probably wasn't perfectly calibrated and synchronized with an atomic clock. The HH Store would never have imagined their camera would become a key part of evidence in a murder trial.
jmo
Regarding PCA posted: Witness "advised she said “Hi” to the male but he just glared at them.”The car sightings are slightly problematic for me. All three occurred between 2:10, 2:14 and 2:28.
It seems they have no sightings before or after. I'm not sure how they will get around that.
This entire case doesn't end with the PCA.I think they would have corrected that in the PCA to say it was off by so many minutes, etc.
So many "it must have been this...." in this case when things/statements conflict. I prefer to go by what the facts tell us, personally.
IMO MOO
The 2:14 was BB; the names of the other two are redacted in this document.
The 2:10 and 2:28 times are indicated by witnesses that spotted a car backed into the CPS parking lot.A vehicle similar to RA's Ford 2016 is caught on video at 1:27 pm which fits in perfectly with the time RA claims he was there which was around 1:30 pm.
The minors saw the creepy man around 1:26 pm based on the photo one of them took which would likely have the date and time on it.
If the vehicle really is that of RA's and he was driving by at 1:27 pm and the minors really did see a creepy man on the trail around 1:26 pm - then the creepy man and RA can't be the same and one.
I take it the video footage doesn't show plate numbers just vehicles as they pass by left or right.
Who saw the vehicle at 2:10 pm, 2:14 pm and 2:28 pm?
The 2:10 and 2:28 times are indicated by witnesses that sported a car backed into the CPS parking lot.
IMO I do recall that the defense requested in one their motions for any information about whether a witness line up had occurred. Of course we don’t know if that happened or not.Regarding PCA posted: Witness "advised she said “Hi” to the male but he just glared at them.”
I know a witness can be unreliable; however, wonder if this witness will be able to identify RA during trial, or if witness already identified him in a line up? moo
IMO I think it’s likely a witness could have incorrectly remembered the color of a car but remember where it was parked and that it was parked oddly.Smart car, SUV and PT Cruiser and the 2:10 pm witness saw that vehicle as a purple PT cruiser.
RA on the day had a black 2016 Ford Focus.
Two of them (I think) did notice though that it was parked like it was concealing it's licence plate number.
Could it be that witness remembered the colour incorrectly or that that vehicle was driven by someone else.
I wonder if the drive by witness saw the muddy bloody man walking towards that particular vehicle parked at the CPS building or not.
May have to read it again...