LegallyBrunette
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,777
- Reaction score
- 4
If MB's answer was no to Q1, perhaps it took him only a moment to answer and the police did not believe him. Perhaps he has absolutely no verifiable alibi. What if he did not use his 'phone or switch it on, was not seen by his neighbours and just went home, ate something, watched a dvd and went to bed?
Interestingly, my husband and I watched Hitchcock's 'The Wong Man' earlier. Fascinating to see how difficult it is to prove your innocence without an alibi (depending on definitive forensics, of course) and how easy it is to be seen to be guilty because of circumstantial evidence. Or when the police really want to pin the crime on a specific person and will do anything they can, the evidence of which then gets approval from the CPS to go to court - Colin Stagg comes to mind.
Also, think that Paddy has an interesting point in whether the abductor was an opportunist and just took the first child that he could get into his vehicle, whether April was specifically targeted and/ or whether there could have been two or more victims if the young witnesses had also decided to get in the vehicle with her.
It's not getting any clearer is it?
Clear enough if you read everything that is available to us.
Depending on the type of phone, it can be traced even if switched off, flat battery and the SIM is removed. It happened here earlier this month in the Jill Meagher murder.