StarryStarryNight
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2017
- Messages
- 3,528
- Reaction score
- 43,745
I watched a trial once where a man dismembered his victims and disposed of one victim's lower body parts in a nature reserve. At his trial, the prosecution called to the stand a woman who was playing with her grandchild in the front yard of a house when she observed a man walking into the nature reserve area on the day in question. She did not see him close up, and could not identify his face or say the defendant was THE person she had seen, but she was able to describe the general appearance of him (his race, his build) and that he carried a backpack, where he was walking and the direction that he went. The value of this testimony was not that she could identify him specifically, but to establish that someone who reasonably looked like him was in the area that the body parts were found, and to shore up digital evidence from his cell phone (Snap Chat, I believe) that showed his location in that same area at the exact same time.
This is an example of how investigators use evidence that "stacks;" in and of itself, a particular piece may not "prove," especially BARD, but it contributes to an overall timeline of what we can say reasonably happened from looking at the evidence as a whole.
I have been thinking along these lines but could not put my thoughts together well enough to explain it.
You did it brilliantly!