- Joined
- Jun 27, 2019
- Messages
- 15,939
- Reaction score
- 201,110
Imo, it is compelling enough for what its worth. LE didn't know who that shoe print belonged to then. They did, however, have the other evidence linking directly to BK. DM's statement narrative was a couple paragraphs in the PCA, while the vehicle and other digital evidence was pages and pages. I guess I'm inclined to think that at a time when LE didn't have BK's shoes to compare with, even a thousand bloody shoe prints weren't useful in an arrest PCA. That's why I lean towards the ideas I've posted. Now, if LE does indeed find a diamond-patterned pair of shoes at BK's with victim DNA on it, then these shoe prints become binding, for sure.
The print was useful, IMO.
The goal of a PCA is to give LE latitude to look for possible shoes. Naturally, since it's the first step in the process of arrest, they don't have all the evidence yet - they are looking for more.
"Binding" is subject to what the jury thinks. And if no diamond-soled shoes are found, this will likely never come up at court. Ever.
Because who would introduce it? If the defense tries to, the prosecution will point out that the shoes were the right size and indicated a person of BK's height. If those shoe prints don't do that, then the defense has a nice piece of exculpatory evidence.
I believe LE is smarter than that. They know his height and probably his shoe size already, when they make that PCA. They were onto him from around the third week of November and it isn't rocket science to catch an observation of this person and figure out his shoe size. If his foot doesn't match that shoe size, then it's exculpatory and these are the most bungling cops in recent history - which I firmly reject. The inference in some posts that LE are basically incapable really bugs me. This is LE friendly forum.
I don't believe they handed the defense a bit of exculpatory evidence right in the PCA. And the judge didn't think so either.
So.
IMO.