brownbread
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 129
- Reaction score
- 418
It's entirely possible that the car owner was questioned as part of the routine investigation before his car was spotted on CCTV going over the bridge.
Yes indeed - in fact on my second reading of the daily mail article that mentioned this whole car-on-bridge thing, this was what I had understood. initially interviewed and eliminated, then the CCTV footage turned up and this changed the direction of the case.
This doesn't discount possibility of REinterviewing the owner and/or driver after the CCTV turned up, and of a reason for the cross-bridge journey being given which was plausible if not wholly satisfactory.
Incidentally I have still seen nothing much to suggest VT doesn't own of have access to a car, other than he has a bicycle. I'm pretty sure the two things aren't mutually exclusive! I think the only evidence to suggest not having a car is the wording of the parents' appeal