BM reminds me of LS in the Gannon Stauch case. Every time LE confronted her with a piece of evidence, she changed her story to make it fit.
BM thinks he’s so smart, but he’s not smart at all.
LE asks him about running around the house on 5/9. He says he’s chasing chipmunks. Why didn’t he just say he wasn’t? Because he knew that LE knew he was running around at 2:44 that day.
LE asks him about the tranquilizer gun. He says he tranqs deer and cuts off their antlers and that he also shot chipmunks on 5/9. Why would you say you were shooting anything that day? Because he thought that LE knew.
LE asks him about the missing tranquilizer dart. He says he threw tranquilizer material away on 5/10 in Broomfield. Why ever would you say that? Because he thought that LE might have retrieved the evidence.
LE said in the prelim that BM changed his story multiple times. He did this because he was changing the story to fit the evidence. The problem with this type of tactic is that you are making admissions. What is more believable, LE evidence or your concocted story to fit the evidence?
Wow, Old Cop! This is brilliant - maybe you should come out of retirement?!