The caller was pretty adamant about the location of the vehicle he saw parked along the road. It was an older model, he said. LE told him about the car in the CPS lot, and we can believe him because in 2021, when the call was made, his narrative on how LE described the CPS lot car was very similar to what we read a year later in the RA PCA. But again, this is NOT the car the caller saw and describes. He claims to not have seen the car in the CPS lot, but we don't know exactly where this caller was and if he could clearly see the CPS lot from his position that day.
GH reposted that video after the PCA came out because the PCA added merit to the caller's statements, IMO. I think the caller's statement is of value, but that's JMO. Maybe LE has already identified the owner of the older model car parked along the road, and found it insignificant. IDK. But it wasn't mentioned in the PCA, and the witnesses who saw the car in the CPS lot likely would have seen that vehicle parked along the road, as well, yet we don't hear about that, either. Is that because it wasn't important to the PCA, or was it not something LE wanted out there? Does it play a role in why NMcL wanted the PCA to remain sealed? Because the driver of that car would know the same witnesses who saw the CPS lot car would have seen his older model parked along the road?
This is one of those details that I keep tucked away in the back of my mind because I think the information will be of importance and resurface at a later date .
