Add:
- his admissions to parking his car at the side of "Old Farm Bureau";
- his admission to being present on the trails from 1330-1530;
- his admissions that the clothing he wore that day match the suspects description of clothing;
- the witnesses' statements;
- the video that the PCA states has him "seen and heard" saying "guys, down the hill";
- the fact that the adult female witness who observed him on platform 1 then turned to leave and she passed Abby & Libby heading toward the bridge yet he claims never to have seen the girls;
- the fact that in the Oct 13th, 2022 interview he now changes his narrative to state that he was on the platform "watching the fish" and then "left the trails";
a. Woman who saw him on the platform had to walk back to her car after she turned about and video has her car leaving the area at 2:14pm after passing A&L on the trail, so if he actually left then too, he would have HAD TO pass A&L (in both interviews he conveniently denies ever seeing/interacting with the two victims however);
b. This means he is also switching up his timings from his original "I was there from 1330-1530" to now leaving at some point very shortly after 2:14pm (right after the woman witness saw him on the platfom). Why the sudden change in story and departure timings from the bridge? (IMO because the girls' have snaphat etc of them on the bridge at a time the woman witness has clearly placed him in the immediate vicinty of the bridge). I also think, in his first interview, it's possible that he did not realize that the woman observed him standing on the platform and so he didn't "need cover his butt" for that originally to explain away "why" he was at the scene and physically on the bridge mere minutes before the girls were abducted. He did have to explain the teenagers sighting of him as he knew he was seen by them so offered it up;
c. I think, in Interview 2 on 13 October 22, RA learns about the woman witness placing him on the platform at the given time and ergo "the fish story" and the change in his timing to now "then I left the trails (IE: Before the murders happened)" vice the "I was there until 1530hrs". He has denied seeing the girls - an impossibilty if he actully left the trails to head back to his car right after the woman saw him as he would have HAD to pass the girls on the way out (they gotcha RA!);
- His denials of ever having loaned his gun to anyone or let anyone use it;
- His denial of ever having been present on RL's private property; and
- The subjective ballistics detailing markings from his personal Sig-Sauer ejector matching those found on the round at the crime scene.
But, but, but ... the markings are only "subjective" thus a good defence attorney would have a field day:
I'm willing to bet science will also show:
- neither one of the victims' fingerprints on it (so neither of the girls picked it up and dropped it there);
- that the round was not subjected to prolonged exposure to the elements (so he didn't just 'lose' it on an earlier trip to the RL private proprty that he self-admittedly never stepped foot on)
- that there are no fingerprints on that round ... or just his.
So, while subjective it may be, the actual odds of all of the above occuring, combined with the ballistics of a .40 cal Sig-Sauer matching the round extraction markings to the gun he just happens to own are not impossible, they all combine to make it very, very highly improbable that anyone else committed this crime.
That makes his arrest very reasonable and, I'm willing to wager that once all the other evidence also comes to light at trial, likewise a conviction beyond any 'resonable' doubt. They've got evidence, ballistics and he is classicly 'changing his story' to explain away evidence as he learns it (the timing change after learning of the woman witness placing him on the bridge platform).
They've got this guy two ways to Sunday.
-