There is not one witness who came forward and said, "I saw RA on the bridge at time X, and he was wearing a navy blue jacket and jeans." That's the problem, one of them. No one said, it was RA. Suddenly, after his arrest, many followers of the case insert RA into the original witness statements. That's not accurate. They each said, I saw a man, a person, someone wearing a blue or black jacket, etc. He worked as a pharmacy tech in a very small town. How could all of these witnesses never recognize him until after the arrest?
There isn't a 1:1 identification. IMO it's not required.
It's cumulative.
It's consistent.
RA isn't excluded by.
RA may have taken steps to disguise himself. Burrowing his chin into his jacket. What was left was an impression, a memory. Recall. Juveniles who didn't know there'd be a test. BB and BC who saw only from a distance. A video limited by pixels.
I doubt RA ever wandered about town in blue jeans and a blue jacket after that. Might that have jarred a comparison, if he had.
Will RA be convicted on the memory of a single witness? No. I wouldn't expect him to.
In the recent Murdaugh trial, AM supplied a timeline that was blown apart by a video his son took moments before the murder, placing him at the scene.
IMO the State will very carefully synthesize the evidence in this case. Weaving witness' recall, CAST reports and timestamps, alongside RA's statements and confessions.
It will be for the jury, given the totality of the evidence presented, to determine credibility. Including RA's. If they find it reasonable beyond doubt that RA is BG, then the rest follows.
Will it matter if witnesses describe blue or black? Or will they find those descriptions generally consistent? Will they be moved by the digital evidence?
It IS significant that several witnesses place A MAN in the direct vicinity of the bridge just prior to a video capture of the same. Not a group of men, not a tall man. Not a man of distinct heritage. All remarkably consistent.
When held up against DD's notes, RA put himself at that location, at that time, in clothes like that, and he felt safe in doing so IMO because he was confident he had eliminated the two people who could positively identify him. Alas, he didn't know he'd been audio and video recorded.
I am not a juror, won't be called to be one so I don't have to wait until all the evidence and only the allowed evidence has been presented to have an opinion. It is my opinion that the State will be able to show guilt BARD and he'll be convicted accordingly.
The juveniles and the adult witnesses had/have no reason to lie. RA does. IMO he couldn't not see the girls that day.
I base this on more than just similarity (RA=BG) but on digital forensics which IMO will put RA's phone on the bridge, or if not, off the bridge creating a damning black hole.
That is what will sink him.
JMO
