Only at sentencing submissions is any reference to prior offences given - nothing can be discussed until it's placed before the court at that time.
It's to prevent undue bias being placed while the crime is proven in court.
But I also think it works both ways in this case too - there were some remarks made by family spokespeople which don't "gel" with the outcome that we got.
For all we know, these could have been largely orchestrated remarks to make the offender feel "safe" and therefore return CC safely. If he honestly believed someone else was being pinned for it, then his need to destroy the main witness disappears. At least that's what I'm now leaning towards.
It's been a mystery. In time we will know more. Patience isn't one of our best virtues as sleuthers, but staying the course certainly is.
