isnt it possible however ..that while the victim lost so much blood >>the crime scene could still be clean ?
cause that what RL said afterwards describing it..after le left of course
i mean is it possible..that the loss of blood was mainly due to examination of the bodies and due to horrific injuries ? or does it necessary mean the state of the said crime scene
He does say that. He's shown the crime scene, allegedly on his property, and describes it as "pristine".
CASAREZ: So did you go -- did you go out -- since this was your property, you find out that they are there. Did you go out to the crime scene yourself?
LOGAN: The crime scene has been closed off. It was not -- my property was not released back to me until late Wednesday. I went to the crime scene Thursday morning to try to get a feeling of it. And it`s still difficult to just...
What did you see when you went out there?
There was not much to see, other than the crime scene tape around the area. The area was still very pristine. You couldn`t actually tell
that there was any such a violent action.
CASAREZ: You didn`t see any blood? You didn`t see a gruesome scene?
LOGAN: No, nothing. The area was very, very pristine. There was nothing there to see. I mean, really...
So, they're killed at one location where nothing is evident, then moved to another location where there's a really bloody scene with 'posed' bodies. It's like, look over here and not back there.
I forget, did RL keep cattle on his acreage? I remember questions about a hired hand.
I thought the shoe was lost while being dragged to location #2.