I am stuck on this video today. Here is the section of
the transcript that relates:
>>CH: Now, in some of the reports that have been covering this case regarding the cell phone – oh, I’m sorry – the credit card finds, a 7-11 store is reportedly nearby this area.
WH: Correct.
CH: Have the police thought about looking at surveillance footage? Or are there even cameras?
WH: Yes actually there is cameras and uh it’s actually, honestly sad because the police showed me a video on their cell phone and there was a girl and it looked like she was walking from across the street into the 7-11. But, when that girl entered the 7-11… Now, she may have been of Asian descent. My daughter is Asian and Caucasian. Now - I understand that - I really couldn’t tell the descent of the person, but she did look Asian. But, I do know my daughter’s hair. It was almost down,
3/4thsof the way of her back, and that wasn’t my daughter. My daughter normally wore her hair pulled up, whatever. That day in particular she had it pulled up --
CH: Mhmm
WH: -- into, like, a bun. Now it wasn’t… she had a headband on, but what was holding her hair in that little bun was, uh, what you call a “pre-wrap.” You know, she plays sports, and a pre-wrap is the stuff you put down underneath like an Ace bandage - it’s like the foamy stuff. Well, her personal style was to use that pre-wrap, um, because you know scrunchies I guess, whatever, people lose them so easily. So, she used that to make her own scrunchie or hair-tie. So, that’s what she had in her hair and it was pulled up, like, into a bun in the back so, um… She didn’t wear her hair down a lot but when she did, you know, it definitely wasn’t that length. Uh, it wasn’t my daughter. I mean, they did - I do believe they cleared that, of that, because they asked us. That was one of, one of.. that was the only piece of information that they showed us during this whole case… is that video.>>
I am leaning to the side that this video does exist. It might be the piece of evidence that LE is basing the evening to morning of March 2-3.
WH states emphatically that it isn't AJ ostensibly on the length of the girl's hair in the video. That he is looking at on a cell phone, btw.
AJ was wearing her hair up when WH claims to have seen her. She usually does wear her hair up. She's been away at school. There are photos on mom's SM in which AJ's hair is pretty close to the length he specifies. WH is not living in the home. So how does he know?
What about the clothing the girl is wearing? Seems more reliable way of ruling her in or out.
Or, how about the way she moves? When I am in a position where I cannot see details of a loved one, I can almost 100% find them by the way their body moves. I have done it in water parks without my glasses (when I am nearly blind) across the width of a pool. I have done it on the football field when I cannot see my kids' numbers. He seems so clued in to her hair, of all things, wouldn't he be as familiar with her movement, especially given she is an athlete and he has had many opportunities to watch her in motion.
I am torn between two ideas:
This is AJ and the NPD is basing timeline around it.
This is not AJ and WH has a more concrete reason to know it is not AJ.
But if it is AJ, why is WH discounting it?