In all fairness, he doesn't "suggest" that he saw Zahra up and walking around prior to Sept. 24, he clearly states that he "100 %, genuinely, saw Zahra out of bed" on Thursday, Sept.7 (which he changed from Tues. Sept. 5).
The only reason I'm bothering to belabor this point is because it is EXTREMELY problematic for AB, given that this was a mere 2 days prior to Zahra being reported missing. If he is saying that he last saw Zahra out of bed on Sept. 7, and she was reported missing on the afternoon of Sept.9 , that leaves only Sept. 8 as a possible day for him to have seen the "lump" in the bed. He is therefore asking us to believe that sometime between the evening of Sept. 7 and the afternoon of Sept.9, EB killed and dismembered Zahra, used 2 vehicles to dispose of body parts, returned and cleaned up the mess, painted 2 rooms in the house, wrote a ransom note, poured gasoline in his work vehicle and started a mulch fire, all without him ever noticing a thing amiss.
Anyone here think that humanly possible? Because I sure in the hell don't.
I'm hoping we'll hear in court an estimate for the age of the paint in Zahra's room (may have existed prior to Bakers) and the renovation of bathroom (walls and flooring). Was the blood/tissue OVER or UNDER the pink paint? If OVER, attempts by EB to clean up may have been hindered by the pink washed paint; what her eyes would see is far from what forensics are able to identify. If UNDER, then this certainly opens up a can of worms for the timeframe. If the paint was only days old, forensics would know this, and I'm certain AB would have been asked about this by LE.
In my mind I keep coming back to the Nilsen case that
tlcox and I discussed briefly that he kept bodies and parts of dismembered bodies in his flat for months, bagged in various hidden locations AND at that time had a boyfriend who never noticed anything was amiss. Perhaps there was an odour and he would say something like "Oh there's a terrible smell I wonder if a possum has died under the floor?" or something similar, to dismiss the topic.
I agree,
Mountain_Kat, a huge weight is on AB's claim that he saw Zahra alive and well days prior to her disappearance. I wish we could hear the full explanation, rather than having to wait until court. And I wish he'd give a definite date, since he seems vague about which day. I'm sure LE would have sat down with Adam to discuss his confusion in detail, and I assume LE feels they have a confirmed date. In another post I have questioned how reliable they consider his evidence to be? If "unreliable" this doesn't mean they see him as 'guilty', just that he's not a person with reliable memory. A family member of mine is exactly like that brilliant brain on complex issues, very poor recollection of trivial matters in short term memory. Of course the "trivial" fails to be trivial when the question is "When did you last see your murdered daughter Zahra?" but I'm fairly certain my family member would be frustrated by an inability to answer LE's question accurately either. I'm not convinced that the case will end concluding that the TOD was "24th September or thereabouts" ... it feels like the vagueness may be deliberate. Especially when we know AB has given evidence on his last sighting.
With regards to the blood found in the vehicles, I want to raise a couple of thoughts: when Lindy Chamberlain was charged with killing her baby Azaria at Uluru in the Northern Territory, Australia ("a dingo stole my baby") there was evidence of blood in the car, and they summised that Azaria's head may have been placed in the console/glove box. This was never confirmed as blood from Azaria, and ended up being a sensational part of the trial. In the end she was acquitted of the crime and freed from jail (after serving years). Of course since that trial forensics has been revolutionised. They have DNA from Zahra, so the forensic team will have confirmed if the blood found in the car is hers. Next, it's possible EB may have gone to one car, then decided to use the other car. Or there may be some other cross-contamination issue. We do not know that 2 vehicles were used in the disposal (LE should confirm this at trial). Again, the frustrating waiting game.
The reasons I propose these optional possibilities is I feel we have to be absolutely certain, without any hesitation that we have the information correct. If our theories do not stand up solidly against optional possibilities *if there's even a smidge of a shadow of a doubt then we can't be so sure.