waldojabba
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2019
- Messages
- 1,926
- Reaction score
- 30,079
Great comment. Logic and common sense should have prevailed. Cover all the bases.So Proctor originally thought JOK was beat up by the homeowners based on talking to the paramedic and doesn’t at least want to rule it out during the investigation?
Even if he thought KR did it and had witness statements that JOK never went into the house why not do forensics to verify it and rule it out by checking for blood, vomit residue, mucus, bodily fluids, skin cells, hair samples or fibers from his clothes? There wasn’t an explanation for the cuts on JOK’s arm so even if didn’t think BA was not involved why try to do forensics or take samples or comparisons from the dog and maybe other loose or wild dogs in the area even if it is again to rule Chloe’s involvement or that train of thought out? He wouldn’t even have to accuse the Alberts in this case but say the investigation is covering all their bases.
Proctor emphasizing the JOK’s missing sneaker stood out to me. Even though shoes do often come off when pedestrians are struck by vehicles they can also become loose and if not corrected, fall off when the wearer trips, slips, kicks with a strong enough force, gets a foot caught in a hole or substance like mud, sand and snow. When sneakers or socks become wet or become soggy it cause a shoe to fall off. Analysis of trace evidence have shown that in some cases shoes have either been intentionally pulled off or accidentally jolted off by perps when they have dragged or helped carry a victim by their feet and legs. Instead of just viewing that missing sneaker as a sign of vehicular hit he could have it used it to keep open mind during the investigation to still rule out physical assault, IMO.
Also, the lack of abdominal and pelvic trauma and fractures or injuries to the legs on JOK remains didn’t bother him or cause concern but JO’s missing shoe did?
But here we are.
JMO