If police were doing their job, and they had multiple reports of sightings of the trio in Mexico, or a report from a Mexican authority about something they may have been suspicious about, or a potential sighting on security footage at the border or airport, don't you think LE should go and investigate? Even if they 'believe' the trio to be dead? Or do you think that once they have a belief they should just shut out all other leads, even if they may seem to carry weight? If they disregarded those types of leads because they 'believed' the trio to be dead, then what do you suppose might happen in Court? The defence, I would think, would be able to say, 'but there were multiple sightings and you didn't even bother to follow them up, so how do you know the victims are even dead'. LE stated they were crossing t's and dotting i's. That is what they could have been referring to.
And I humbly disagree with your statement of a smoking gun. There is no good reason why the victims' blood would be in the accused's truck, it is direct evidence linking the two with the victims being transported while bloody/bleeding. To me, the evidence doesn't get much better than that for busting DG. MOO, unlike your statement which appears to be fact.
And I humbly disagree with your statement of a smoking gun. There is no good reason why the victims' blood would be in the accused's truck, it is direct evidence linking the two with the victims being transported while bloody/bleeding. To me, the evidence doesn't get much better than that for busting DG. MOO, unlike your statement which appears to be fact.
Police were reported to be in Mexico on August 5, well after the victims were confirmed deceased, so we can rule out any possibility that police were looking for victims in Mexico.
Circumstantial evidence, such as blood evidence in a truck, isn't a smoking gun. Direct evidence is a smoking gun.