I just re-read the Search Warrant Affadavit. It certainly makes statements that are in direct conflict with the Defense's Memorandum, with little wiggle room that I see for interpretive differences.. somebody's lying or being very misleading.
SWA = presenting evidence - (though a ridiculous uncaught typo omitting a key verb) Blair "walked to the Monon High Bridge and a male matching the male from Liberty's video" The word "saw" or "witnessed" would be what you'd expect is missing, but maybe no assumptions should be made. In the SWA conclusion it later states that Blair "was shown a picture of the individuual on the Monon High Bridge and she says that it is the same individual that she witnessed on the trails and on the bridge" [however I don't think BB, having turned around to walk back almost immediately when seeing BG, saw BG anywhere but on the bridge, thus not on the trails..]
DM = paraphrasing since hard to locate amongst 136 pages, states that depositions or interviews shown to them indicate BB saw a much different looking person than RA would've looked like - age 20's brown poufy hair and that she was the source of YBG the second sketch released, claiming it was a 10 of 10 lookalike sketch for who she saw.
SWA = states SC observed a male subject walking west "wearing a blue jacket and blue jeans and was muddy and bloody"
DM = pretty clearly says that per information they have, again either via interviews or depositions, that SC witnessed someone in a tan jacket, not blue, and the person was indeed muddy, but no mention of bloody.
Those types of verbiage direct conflicts need to be resolved, as these 2 witnesses' testimony is obviously vital to the case since so few witnesses exist.
A couple of other interesting things from the SWA I hadn't ever previously seen:
1) it says the two photos taken by the group of 4 girls were shown to investigators in 2020. Again that could be a typo, otherwise it's kind of staggering that there were crucial timeline photos that were not known of for 3 years, and that the girl who had them still kept these rather innocuous photos of a bridge and a bench and remembered what they were of and assumedly the time stamp is still considered accurate?! The SWA doesn't say when the (3 of 4) girls were interviewed other than "through the investigation", perhaps '17 or '20 or other, but does specifically mention the one witness with the pics was talked to in 2020 when these pics came to light. I have wondered if this bench which was photographed, and is so key to the RA timeline, is distinctive from any other bench on the trail that 3 years later it would be obvious where that bench was in 2017 and maybe or not remained in the same spot later in 2020??
2) In introducing BB and how her vehicle was spotted on HH video at 1:46, the SWA states "an individual by the name of BB was returning to the trails to finish her walk". I think this must be a typo as it is widely accepted that she was driving into the trail area at 1:46 to begin a walk [and noticed 4 girls on the bridge above as she drove underneath]. Now admittedly I have questioned over the years, given HH camera timestamps that would suggest she wasn't out of her car until about 1:48 yet back in her car by around 2:12, thus an extremely short walk to have gotten in her car to drive to... what the astronomically miniscule likelihood (unless artificially created) would be that within that small time window she would find herself smack dab between RA who passed by Mears around 1:45 and A&L who entered from Mears around 1:50. Nonetheless nothing has ever been suggested that she started a walk earlier and was driving elsewhere to finish it.
Perhaps I'm too much of a stickler for grammar and spelling, but I think both sides lose credibility that these documents aren't better proofread before being filed!
