I believe that's inaccurate. Barrows did not ID Whitley, although he did say he had similar features to him. He had longer sideburns and hair than the perp, Barrows said. In fact, Chief Shanafelt reiterated in an Aug 10, 1980 interview that Barrows had NOT IDd. Whitley.
It’s not inaccurate, it just comes from the FBI rather than from the sheriff. Imo, Barrows’ ID (selecting the FBI facsimile photo of RLW) was stronger than the identification suggested by the witness at the mission who, from a distance, thought he saw somebody who looked like RLW standing in the chow line at 5:15. Whitley signed in to the mission at 6pm. Several articles report that LE ruled him out on this timeline basis alone (as the crime was committed close to 5pm). But the crime scene was less than 50 miles away..
From the “full text of Kingfish Murder Survivor Raymond Barrows FBI Interview (Eric Michael Green) 8/3/80”:
“Barrows was requested to view simultaneously a display of six facsimile photographs of white males to determine if any of them were identical to the individual to whom he and his brother-in-law, Dr. Juan Antonio Dumois, furnished a ride at Holmes Beach , Florida on August 1. 1980. Included in this display was one photograph of Richard Lee Whitney, Arlington, Virginia, Police Department #A563957.
Barrows selected the facsimile photograph of Richard Lee Whitley from the photographic display and advised that the individual depicted in the photograph was very similar in appearance to the individual to whom he and Juan Dumois furnished a ride in Holmes Beach, Florida, on August 1, 1980. Barrows advised that the facial characteristics of this depicted individual were very similar to those of the individual described above. Barrows stated that the facial similarities include those of the nose, eyebrows, eyes, sunken areas below the eyes, standard size lower lip and thinner upper lip, chin, wrinkles in the forehead and apparent age, which Barrows described as 35 to 38 years old. Barrows noted the build of the depicted individual appeared to be the same as that of the hitchhiker. Barrows stated the hitchhikers hair was shorter and his sideburns were much shorter than those features of the depicted individual. He recalled that the unknown individual had something noticeable on his chin that was very similar to the marking appearing on the chin of the depicted individual.”
“Barrows signed his name and date on the reverse side of the facsimile photograph he had selected.”
Now, I know there are articles out there in which the Sheriff or Chief says that RLW was not “positively” identified by Barrows. What is the difference between “positively identified” and saying that “virtually every minute detailed feature of his face was very similar”? Imo, the Sheriff/Chief was either wrong or intentionally being vague - not wanting to close out all possibilities - and the FBI was right.
And I never got the impression that some conglomeration of joint LE agencies had ruled RLW out. If you don’t mind, where did you get your information that “the decision to rule Whitley out was apparently (apparently?) done in conjunction with FDLE and multiple agencies, who (who?) were all said (by whom?) to be in agreement? Do you have a link for this claim?
As I addressed in my post, there are several plausible explanations for why RLW’s finger prints and shoe print didn’t match the one finger print and the one shoe print found at the scene: they could’ve belonged to a first responder.
And as to why the shoes didn’t match the shoes RLW was wearing when he was apprehended at a house (several hours later)? He changed shoes because his were bloody. And again, I don’t think the ID made by a person at the mission (the witness who claims he saw RLW standing in line at 5:15) trumps Barrows’s selection of RLW’s facsimile photo from a photo lineup presented to him in person by the FBI. RLW signed in at 6pm.
I guess one could argue that “very similar, very similar, very similar” et al - on feature after feature after feature of RLW’s face (including some very unique features) does not equate to a “positive” identification, but it sure amounts to a very very very similar identification.
But again, I can’t explain why the Sheriff/Chief would later try to give the public just the opposite impression. I would simply point people to the FBI transcript. I suspect that the Chief might not have wanted close out other possibilities while the crime was still in very recent public memory - and after all, RLW had denied his involvement.
The length of hair and length of sideburns discrepancies (which I believe were the ONLY decrepancies noted by Barrows) could easily be explained by the fact that the photo was taken at an earlier time, by LE up in VA.
I certainly don’t know for a fact that RLW committed the crime, but many articles clearly state that he was LE’s main suspect. Barrows (who was the only person to speak face to face to the hitchhiker while he was next to the car and the only witness to what then took place inside Dumois’ car) identified him.
Barrows selected the photo and made the comments comparing the man in the photo to the hitchhiker. Barrows signed and dated the back of the photo.
Maybe RLW didn’t do it - and maybe Barrows lied or made things up. But to claim that Barrows did not “identify” RLW as the hitchhiker (especially in/given the FBI photo lineup) is, imo, absurd.
All jmo.
Eta: I disagree with the claim: “They did not find anything to link him to the crime.” I think RLW was in the vicinity of the crime scene (less than an hour away within an hour of when the crime occurred); he was a brutal (and quite possibly mentally unstable) individual on the run from LE for a horrendous rape and murder he’d just committed up in VA; he lied to LE about how he got to FL; he fits the description provided by many witnesses; and Raymond Barrows identified him in an FBI photo line up as the hitchhiker they picked up.