10ofRods
Verified Anthropologist
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2019
- Messages
- 15,541
- Reaction score
- 194,599
The prosecution unveiled the protection DM had, by putting her in the PCA. She could have been a surprise witness used only if needed during trial, but they did not make that choice. I wonder why?
Was the PCA not strong enough without her eye witness of his height, build, and bushy eyebrows at that time of the morning?
Were PD all over the area given the physical description DM gave them, and tasked with connected that description to a white Elantra?
If so, it was DM’s description that made WSU red flag BK, with the bodycam from his Oct stop in Pullman.
She also heard his voice, or at least a male voice.
Yes it could have been someone else, but her description is compelling and also lines up with the shoe print on the floor.
I don’t think BK’s legal team would necessarily put her on. I do think BK would put her on just to be entertained by the fear he saw
JMO
I think it was very helpful to the Judge, in deciding to issue the arrest warrant (to know that there was an eyewitness to the sex, height and overall build of the murderer).
It's also important that DM's testimony apparently led to a second pass over the crime scene, uncovering latent prints. Up until then, LE might not have know they were there or where exactly to look with their more sensitive blood detection system.
DM's eyewitness account put the investigation on better footing, as she also indicates that he seems to heading for the exit on the second floor at that time (and that's why the footprint outside is important as well). I think that one footprint outside appears to be from his way into the house, the latent print is him on his way out.
All of this scene-setting helps the judge. IMO.