One thing that intrigues me is the 'sandals on surveillance' thingy.
I'm betting that sandals are not the only image on that tape. They are likely attached to legs, pants, a body, and who knows what else, possibly a vehicle? Also, we don't know where the surveillance is from, right?
Contradiction info has been put out there.
1. Cops say no video, dna, etc.
2. The dude arrested for this case then let go said he was shown video of sandals.
Which is correct? I'm banking on the original suspect's account. I've seen LE in other cases mislead the public about what they do or
don't have for evidence.
Also, what did they have for probable cause to actually arrest that guy and tear his property up? In MOST cases, there has to be some pretty good evidence for a warrant to be issued for that.
One wonders what...