Markybug
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Messages
- 477
- Reaction score
- 846
Please, snip away for brevity. You'll be doing all of us a favor.
I understood all of that, answered all my questions. I didn't know about the central recorder providing the timestamps, that's very helpful. So was your snip of transcript.
I have to just pause though at "why wasn't every angle covered with surveillance cameras?" I don't want to be too harsh on people providing useful information but that's unbelievably unrealistic. They have a camera covering the entrance and luckily where the car was parked, it covers walking mostly around the pool. The have another camera that's covering the pool gate that picks him up after he gets that far around the pool.
The question isn't what about the 20 second, the question is what about the, I don't know, the 30 some feet gap not covered? It's feet, not seconds. Thte fact that it took him 20 seconds to cover maybe less that 40 feet says he quit walking. For starters, you can toss out that ridiculous "walked away and never looked back" nonsense. We know he stopped and looked back when he got to the tree.
It appears that after he got around the pool and reasonably out of sight and disconnected from the car that he was checking if anyone was noticing. He did the same thing when he got past the pool gate to the tree. I just don't see why anyone would be surprised. It also completely eliminates some unknowing person parking the car with the mindset of a parking lot attendant. This guy was planting the car and didn't want to be connected to it. That's clear to me from the pauses he took walking away.
Very helpful, Truth. Thanks very much.
Thats a good point RD , re the POI not being a innocent party , parking the car only , but a much more involved individual , possibly the actual perpetrator?