LE knows DW had contact before and after the crime with someone who we can't discuss here, even handing off the loot, but that person hasn't been arrested, as far as we know. Do you think LE has investigated that other person and found him to be uninvolved in the crime, despite being caught with $20,000 of the ransom money?
At the end of the report linked below, McGinty says
"Now the lead detective did testify that police have not offered Jordan Wallace any sort of a deal to avoid prosecution.” Assuming the defense asked the question, why would DW's attorneys want to know that? If JW is not involved in the case, why would LE offer him a deal and what would JW have to say that could implicate DW?
As much as I like to make assumptions, I don't think we can assume we know what LE knows. Since they stated again yesterday that they don't believe DW acted alone, they must have information that points to that conclusion that we don't have. If they have someone in mind, they haven't named that person as a suspect. If they think someone is involved who they haven't investigated yet, they haven't told us that either. The only way we know DW was involved in the crime is because of DNA. That's virtually worthless for fingering someone who had reason to be at the crime scenes. It would take a lot longer to build a case without forensic evidence.
There are plenty of cases where LE suspects someone, but doesn't arrest them until months or years after the crime. The Lyons sisters case just made an arrest after 40 years! I hope we don't have to wait that long for justice in this case.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...31d64c-2cc4-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html