DaleTray, HGO, and puakenikeni, thank you all for the point of view. I do understand, but I have a different point of view. I have been thinking logically about the facts vs. the alibi. Simply put, if Charli was really in her car on Hana Hwy with her pitbull dog, Nala, heading back to Haiku, last seen by SC roughly at 10:30 around Twin Falls, and he knew for certain that it was her because of the distinctive grille lights, why is it that her phone last pinged at 11:00 PM in Honomanu and her dog was found the next morning in Nahiku? The alibi does not support the facts in this case.
Blood/DNA is not the only evidence. Everything presented in court is evidence. The presence of the dog in Nahiku is evidence. The ping from Charli's phone is evidence. The testimony of SC's co-workers and the Planned Parenthood worker is evidence. SC's interviews with the police are evidence. And the clothes, jawbone, etc. are evidence. So I don't see any evidence pointing in the direction of a strange psycho monster, except the strange, psycho monster that lives inside of the "24 year old youth with some pretty normal hobbies who loves organic food and protests Monsanto and has had a few girlfriends". If I had known him personally prior to the crime, it would have taken me a while to wrap my head around the contrast of the person I knew with the person who committed this heinous crime, just as Sharon Rocha did not in the beginning believe that her son-in-law, Scott Peterson, could possibly have done anything to harm Laci. I again think of his co-workers, the people he interacted with day in and day out at work. I'll bet it took them a while to wrap their heads around the person they knew vs. the monster. Their testimony was, IMHO, powerful.
JMHO. :cow:
Blood/DNA is not the only evidence. Everything presented in court is evidence. The presence of the dog in Nahiku is evidence. The ping from Charli's phone is evidence. The testimony of SC's co-workers and the Planned Parenthood worker is evidence. SC's interviews with the police are evidence. And the clothes, jawbone, etc. are evidence. So I don't see any evidence pointing in the direction of a strange psycho monster, except the strange, psycho monster that lives inside of the "24 year old youth with some pretty normal hobbies who loves organic food and protests Monsanto and has had a few girlfriends". If I had known him personally prior to the crime, it would have taken me a while to wrap my head around the contrast of the person I knew with the person who committed this heinous crime, just as Sharon Rocha did not in the beginning believe that her son-in-law, Scott Peterson, could possibly have done anything to harm Laci. I again think of his co-workers, the people he interacted with day in and day out at work. I'll bet it took them a while to wrap their heads around the person they knew vs. the monster. Their testimony was, IMHO, powerful.
JMHO. :cow:
I hope anyway. I have to admit though, these 2016 CSI type juries of late scare the crap out of me and I wish judges would spend a little more time in defining the word "circumstantial".
