I see what you are saying SteveS. I both agree and disagree. And forgive me if ive understood your post wrong and this in fact makes no sense.
I think looking at the angles of the "no why” and the camo man are in fact relevant. Because by determining exactly in what context this statement was made and what the motives of camo man were, we eliminate or confirm exactly WHO camo man is.
If there is very little or no actual incriminating evidence against JA, ZA or the brothers and it is found that in fact someone else was the abducter, it creates reasonable doubt in regards to the current accused.
There is so much we dont know of what LE knows and what evidence they have but i dont ever think mulling over any detail, big or small, is ever unneeded.
So throwing around ideas and speculation on even the minute details is helpful in my opinion. It gives you the information needed to eliminate possibilities.
It only takes one person to think of something or a situation that noone else has.
FS, let me make clear that I was talking about what WE know ...which is certainly not the same as what LE knows. (Or, at least, hopefully there is a massive difference.)
And in this context, I was focusing on the evidence of the initial act, where we like to talk about, but where we know little - - and where I think LE doesn't know much (if any) more than we do.
On that stuff, we like to talk, because we have some snippets. And I agree that throwing around the possibilities is interesting. But, as long as we don't have any concrete evidence to eliminate other of the possibilities (and we don't, because there isn't any to have), then each of our possibilities only adds to an ever-growing stack of stories to explain what may have happened - - of which, none may eventually turn out to be the right one.
They are fun and interesting to discuss, of course. But they don't lead us to a solution, because each has to work from completely invented ideas and there's nothing to eliminate any other story.
All of the snippets that we have are broad and malleable.
For example, let me give feedback on the statements you made specifically as to some particular pieces of "evidence."
You said: "I think looking at the angles of the "no why” and the camo man are in fact relevant. Because by determining exactly in what context this statement was made and what the motives of camo man were, we eliminate or confirm exactly WHO camo man is."
So let's start with the "No, why" statement and work to "(determine) exactly in what context this statement was made." How would we determine context? By looking at the words that were said to create that response. Well, then what words were said? Umm, we have no idea. So we don't actually know context, nor can we know or determine it, and while we can make up various (thousands) of possibilities, each of those could be right and there's no way to disprove any of the others.
Would it he helpful to know what that question was, that was asked? Sure. But there's no way we can possibly say that this proposed question was definitely right, or that that one was wrong. We either know it, or we don't (and we don't). I'll be glad to play "what if the question was _____ " games with you, if you wish, and it will become quickly apparent that we can come up with plenty of great ones that could very easily have been the "context" and that take us in all kinds of differing directions.
The same applies to the identification of camo man. Would it help if we knew for sure who it was? Of course. Can we know? Based on what evidence we have, no. Our problem is that we have a witness, but the witness assumed it was someone that it wasn't, so made no real effort to see more, and we have no way to definitively identify him after the fact because the evidence about camo man comes through what CB saw (and didn't see).
You mentioned the motives of camo man. How would we ascertain what those must have been? We can't. We can merely invent our own idea, based on our own assumptions, which are no better or worse than any other idea based on very different assumptions. We have nothing concrete to eliminate alternative possibilities.
As a result, if we focus on these items of evidence that we have no way to define, it can't really take us anywhere in the case. We simply end up with a massive pile of possibilities, some of which we might mention and most of which we don't, but all being very possible because these particular pieces of evidence have such broad possibilities.
