enMissMarple2;6052999]
It would ask the question, then how did they question the owner of the car three weeks ago in that scenario. They wouldn't have known who it was would they?
That REALLY puzzles me and does not make any sse.
The order in which the report is written may be misleading. It depends on which way you interpret it to fit in with actual events as they unfold according to the times stated.
Detectives interviewed the owner of the car earlier this month but eliminated him at that stage.
As we know CJ was doing a bit of gossiping and in his own words had been interviewed by police regarding this. As the source later goes on to say they had interviewed Miss Yeates Landlord but nothing materialised from it and there was no concrete evidence linking him in any way to the murder. CJ made a series of comments which now seem irrelevant and innocuous and there was no case against him. Before this breakthrough the investigation was hitting a brick wall’
The investigation changed dramatically three weeks ago after this new footage came to light. One of the CCTV cameras picked up a car driving over the bridge shifting the case dynamics.
CJ was arrested under suspicion of murder around three weeks ago, maybe because of what the new CCTV footage revealed. The new footage could have been his car seen crossing the bridge. It is possible that he denies it was him driving and claims that a certain person borrowed his car, so possibly implicating VT.