I disagree.
I'm a believer in citations, page numbers, minute marks and exhibitions. We give three of those things here frequently.
Is this in reference to suppositions, but not solid evidence?
Saying that someone posted an image on Facebook, for instance, and citing that fact does not actually implicate them in a crime. It does not mean they had the means or opportunity to commit the crime. Saying someone said that someone said someone else told them (person 2) they committed a crime, and citing that deposition, does not implicate that second person in the crime and is hearsay testimony about the third person. That also does not provide reasonable means or opportunity. The list of cited facts goes on in this pattern.
Yes, they have a lot of facts. Yes, they cite those facts. Yes, they are probably true. The issue is those facts don’t reasonably put the individuals in question at or near the crime scene with an opportunity to have committed the murder. Nor do they address key components of the state’s case, like who BG is.
The defense states contradictory things regarding BH that I’ve discussed what is now way upthread. In short, they seem to accept his work alibi which means he can’t be BG, but state he has third party culpability because he looks like BG. However, it would be impossible for him to be BG if the alibi is accepted as true. The other individual mentioned is a foot taller than RA, so probably not him. They don’t really address this one basic premise, and instead try to shift the timeline to the girls being murdered at 4:33am without an explanation for the man on the bridge with a gun that ostensibly kidnapped the girls between 1:30 to 2:30 or so.
The issue with that line of defense is that if they can’t provide a solid defense against RA being the guy on the bridge, felony murder is still on the table. Which is also why I don’t quite understand the handwringing by some commentators about the case being left open and investigators saying they think RA may have had help. Even if he had help, that doesn’t make him less culpable. The state does not have to charge all individuals at once with a crime. In fact, sometimes people are charged and tried and decide to cooperate against their co-conspirators for leniency in sentencing, which results in future charges against those co-conspirators. None of this precludes RA from being the guy on the bridge that kidnapped the girls, and led them down the hill to their ultimate demise.
Unless, of course, the claim becomes “okay, RA kidnapped them but he didn’t have anything to do with their murder, honest!”
All my opinion.