WE might not know, but the police I am confident do. WE don't need to know anything before a trial. What the state has on other individuals really has zero to do with what the state has on RA. This trial is not about everyone else that was tipped in to LE. It's about RA. This is where I get annoyed with the defense just brining anything and everything in as a but what about this... okay but what about your own client who there is evidence against. Even if every other person the defense throws in this is somehow involved, it doesn't also mean their very client RA also isn't involved. If he is, then he's guilty even if others also are involved. I don't believe this to be the case, but even if it is, RA can still be BG and be guilty of taking the girls off the bridge and no matter what else happened after that he is guilty of the crime he's charged with. Nothing the defense is throwing out there makes their client innocent of what the state has charged him with.I think you may be missing the point of the defenses argument and really overstating the evidence that was used to arrest RA.
The issue in this case is that these other people have known connections to the victims and the crime scene and they were not completely investigated so we do not know what their involvement is. It could be nothing, it could be something. But we don’t know so how can we be confident in the investigation into RA with so many loose ends and unknowns.