I might be the only one who thinks the bullet may possibly have just been planted there
Anything is possible IMO. What doesn’t flow for me in the narrative from what I know, is well, a lot of things. The prosecution could have more info we are unaware of. With that being said:
The abduction and homicide would be happening during the day, with up to 5? eye witnesses on the bridge. Some witnesses say blue and some say black jacket, and at least one said it looked like the guy in the photo they released (which Liggett believed was a still from the video and he believed the person in the video is RA). Was a lineup with RA and those who look similar, dressed similarly to eye witness statements brought in for witnesses to identify? If not, how do we know all of the witnesses would identify RA as who they saw on the bridge that day? BW stated her head “came up to approximately his shoulder” (p. 111 PCA), but how tall was BW?
With what we have been shown of the grainy video found on Libby’s phone, how can we be sure the man in the video is RA? If it is RA, what if they encountered someone else after passing him on the bridge?
MOO, to commit this crime in the middle of the day, around a public area, it would require either a certain level of intelligence OR multiple perps. Our biology as humans is programmed for survival, and whether the girls had either a fight or flight innate response, what is the likelihood of one of them not screaming? Especially if they know they are in a place where other people might hear them and be able to help?
If RA acted alone, he would need to both physically subdue both girls and keep them from screaming and bringing attention to the scene. Since Libby was aware enough to video a creepy man on the bridge and his voice, she was likely aware intuitively of potential danger.
On page 110 of the search warrant affidavit, it is stated the same video contains both the man on the bridge and the voice saying “Down the Hill”, and is a 43 second video. Personally, I was unaware these 2 recordings were within the same video. If this is the case, the audio of “Down the Hill” would either have a closer shot of the perp’s face and/or clothing OR it would show nothing if she put it in her pocket trying to hide the phone. If the defense memo is accurate and she was unclothed, what is the probability the phone would not only not be found, but left under her body? In either case, why not show the entire 43 second video? If the video showed more identifying features of the perp, that would be more information to take to identify them; if the video was in her pocket and didn’t show anything, why not show it all and confirm the same man on the bridge approaches them, then says “Down the Hill”? It doesn’t make sense to not show the entire 43 second video from the beginning to try to identify the perp. JMO
MOO RA would need to be somewhat intelligent and organized to subdue 2 teenage girls in the middle of the day in a public area. Let’s say he planned this, he knew they were there or that he was going there to hunt potential victims. He already has an area he plans to take them to commit the murders, which in his view would be somewhere he wouldn’t be caught. Maybe he brings the gun to subdue them, then uses a knife. JMO it strikes me a bit odd for a theoretically intelligent, organized perp to bring 2 weapons to a public area to commit a murder-this is one more weapon to keep up with and make sure you don’t misplace. He’s already being brazen per the location where the murders allegedly took place, ideally if you were the perp you would want a more isolated area. If you are organized you would check for any technology and destroy it, as most everyone knows technology is a main source of evidence. You would also leave your phone somewhere/turn it off. I find it very bizarre and contradictory to be intelligent enough to abduct and murder 2 girls alone but leave TWO pieces of crucial evidence (the cell phone with the video and the bullet) tying you to the crime scene with the bodies. This doesn’t make sense to me. JMO it makes more sense that there were multiple perps and/or the time of death is later (I.e. committed during the night).
I’ve seen a lot of comments about RA’s interview, and I agree it would be unintelligent if RA is the perp to allow the interview. If he is the perp, why would he admit to these things? He could have said he wasn’t on the bridge that day, for example. JMO
