southern_comfort
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Messages
- 967
- Reaction score
- 0
*Speculation Alert!*
Maybe he made two identical poncho purchases at different locations and different times, perhaps even (a) one at Wal-Mart where he knew he'd likely be on surveillance and the receipt would be traceable (in case he needed to prove where he got the ponchos later and exactly how many), but where the cashiers see a ton of customers and would be less likely to remember and (b) the other at a general store type of establishment that lacks surveillance or a sophisticated purchase-tracking system - maybe even a distance away, so the clerk would be less likely to hear of the case - where a clerk might be more likely to remember the purchase, but would have a harder time proving who made it.
That way, if one of his poncho purchases came to light, or if LG's remains or some other evidence of the crime were linked to rain ponchos, he'd have X number of ponchos in his apartment to account for his purchase, a reasonable explanation for having them (camping), and also be able to prove where he got them and exactly how many (in the hope that LE would see a receipt for 10 ponchos, find 10 ponchos in his apartment, and move along).
Maybe the reason we (or some of us anyway) are recalling two separate reports of suspicious purchases is because one purchase was discovered and then dismissed because the ponchos were found intact, in his apartment... but then the second purchase was discovered.
*End of speculation!*
Maybe he made two identical poncho purchases at different locations and different times, perhaps even (a) one at Wal-Mart where he knew he'd likely be on surveillance and the receipt would be traceable (in case he needed to prove where he got the ponchos later and exactly how many), but where the cashiers see a ton of customers and would be less likely to remember and (b) the other at a general store type of establishment that lacks surveillance or a sophisticated purchase-tracking system - maybe even a distance away, so the clerk would be less likely to hear of the case - where a clerk might be more likely to remember the purchase, but would have a harder time proving who made it.
That way, if one of his poncho purchases came to light, or if LG's remains or some other evidence of the crime were linked to rain ponchos, he'd have X number of ponchos in his apartment to account for his purchase, a reasonable explanation for having them (camping), and also be able to prove where he got them and exactly how many (in the hope that LE would see a receipt for 10 ponchos, find 10 ponchos in his apartment, and move along).
Maybe the reason we (or some of us anyway) are recalling two separate reports of suspicious purchases is because one purchase was discovered and then dismissed because the ponchos were found intact, in his apartment... but then the second purchase was discovered.
*End of speculation!*