RA has to prove it was not him on the bridge at the time that is consistent with all the witness statements and a video that is also consistent with his admitted outfit and his appearance. He can do this by either showing he was definitely elsewhere, or there at a time that excludes him as the murderer.
What do the cellphone pings say?
Jumping off your post ... if I may.
And, with respect, and to be precise, RA and his Defense don't need to prove anything. It is the State that bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
So far, it's my understanding from the the testimony about the creation of the enlarged BG image is - that it was a person ("BG") captured for two seconds in the far distance of Libby's video. That image was then professionally manipulated, enhanced and enlarged, then placed back on the bridge for the purpose of encouraging tips, and helping any eyewitnesses recall if they saw such a figure on the bridge or the paths. The BG avatar not intended (by LE) to be used to specifically identify BG .... other than providing an idea of clothing for any eyewitnesses or to encourage tippers. It's also my understanding that testimony thus far suggests that the BG avatar individual was not close enough to have uttered the captured words "down the hill" on the timed tape (eta: see Lawyer Lee's recap of that video day in court). This had been my view since way back, since I'd previously read that the BG avatar was tiny on the video, and highly manipulated to enlarge it. And tiny = far away. (Apologies for the repetition to those who've read my opinion on this - on our Delphi thread here - in the past.)
In my view, BG is a figure in the background that Libby caught while videoing Abby at the far side of their bridge walk. And the value of the video is that time stamp, a timestamp the State argues is the beginning of the kidnapping/murder timeline they describe. Admittedly, it has been my position ever since the timeline (via PCA) arrived on the public docket, (and even before - as I watched Carter's pressers regarding the same) that BG was an entirely fungible avatar that could be 20 or 40 or 50 or 78 years old depending. In fact, throughout the 5 years of investigation, persons of interests were investigated - persons of all of those ages...
The testimony as to BG thus far does not surprise me. That none of the eyewitnesses were consistent with each other in terms of describing individuals they saw on the trails (or the road) during the State's timeline does not surprise me either. They all saw different men of different age, different height, different weight, different hair, different (or no) hats, different eyes ... which is to be expected on a nice day on the trail.
And, easily, 85% of the population of Delphi wear Carhartt jackets and jeans and caps.
As you have pointed out above, to successfully argue against the State's allegations, the Defense will want to bring doubt, bring conflicting facts, and show/illuminate flaws (if any) in the State's case.
For me (and, I'm NOT the jury), the eye witnesses confirmed there were sightings of a man here and there, walking the trails, the road, and the bridge during the State's timeline. And I have noted that none of these eye witnesses were asked to identify RA (sitting in front of them) as the man they saw, nor did they do so voluntarily. And they didn't say it was not RA sitting in front of them either. And I found this very curious. And I half expect the eyewitnesses to return for more testimony and be confronted with that question. We'll see. (Maybe we're done with eye witness testimony ?)
re: cellphones.
So far, we've heard testimony from State witnesses confirming that RA's phone did not ping in the area
during the timeline (for BG and the murders) presented by the State. I tend to
think that we
will hear more about pings as the trial proceeds.
all JMHO
TIA
