Abitcountry
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2016
- Messages
- 561
- Reaction score
- 20
Lets just say for arguments sake, she actually had no clue that a crime had taken place. How different would the evidence be? When you consider evidence against Smich for instance, you always come back to the sausage fry and fireside furniture pics plus the duct tape & change of clothes. He is assumed innocent, there is circumstantial evidence (a lot of it), but those few thing just cannot be logically explained. With CN the same circumstantial evidence is there, but as of yet there hasn't been that "aha" piece of evidence that tells you she knew exactly what she was doing. Hopefully it will come, not sure from where though.
Honestly after all these weeks, I have yet to say that I have heard the "aha" piece of evidence.
This case has been built one brick at a time and it has taken almost 4 months to get to this point......this is the way real life works--bit by bit. So given what we have collectively experienced being on this site, I don't see whatever it is that may have led you to be expecting the big "aha" regarding Noudga.
In my own experience, the insights (aha moments) sneak up on me after I read post after post on a topic and the 'penny drops'....and sometimes it is not obvious to me at all but other poster's get on the trail of some other small but significant clue.
It is something like fishing....you can spend a lot of time with a line in the water and nothing more but someone close to me once explained it saying that's why they call it fishing and not catching.......WS is like fishing !