I do wonder how this case appears for the Jury who are not so close to it.
For instance, we've all known about the video and priced it in. But imagine a reality where RA was arrested based only off timeline and bullet, and then the video had been revealed at trial. Would it be seen as a smoking gun?
For a juror who hasn't followed all of this for years, and doesn't (hopefully) have knowledge of all the macabre backstories and discarded theories/conspiracies - is this case actually not quite simple at it's heart?
BG did these murders within minutes of the abduction, and was gone that afternoon - numerous eyewitnesses saw him, and there is video of him, and Libby's phone corroborates how it went down.
So is RA = BG?
How can he not be if it's his car, and he saw the juvenile girls? Even before confessions and bullets?
MOO
For instance, we've all known about the video and priced it in. But imagine a reality where RA was arrested based only off timeline and bullet, and then the video had been revealed at trial. Would it be seen as a smoking gun?
For a juror who hasn't followed all of this for years, and doesn't (hopefully) have knowledge of all the macabre backstories and discarded theories/conspiracies - is this case actually not quite simple at it's heart?
BG did these murders within minutes of the abduction, and was gone that afternoon - numerous eyewitnesses saw him, and there is video of him, and Libby's phone corroborates how it went down.
So is RA = BG?
How can he not be if it's his car, and he saw the juvenile girls? Even before confessions and bullets?
MOO