My understanding is the juveniles saw him shortly after a photo they took of a bench by the FB with a timestamp 1:26pm. So, their sighting is close to 1:30.
If there is ”solid” evidence against RA, I will be persuaded. I just don’t see that happening at this point and I’m actually concerned that if they do present some “bombshell” there’s a strong possibility of them having planted it. This is just my opinion on what I have read so far.
My only thought on that is, their IQ is also in question? On the one hand, I’d love to these meet guys. On the other hand, maybe not!Apropos EF: I can't understand, why someone, who isn't mentally disabled himself and is going to murder 2 teenagers, should have taken EF with him to the crime scene. A developmentally challenged person like EF would have jeopardized the whole secret operation, with a little bit of bad luck, on the first day (Febr 13th) already.
Totally agree, it speaks more to me of more of their gross misconduct and negligence.
Personally, I think there’s a real possibility that BH was at work. It just doesn’t change why I think RA is not the likely killer. Taking BH out of the CS doesn’t automatically make RA guilty.
sbm IMO, If the defense theory is correct, I don’t think BH is the strongest suspect to have actually committed the murders, I think it’s more likely that if he is involved he helped move bodies afterwards. So, he could have gotten to Delphi in plenty of time for that theory to hold up. other individuals (E and J) are the bigger questions for me. I also don’t believe it was a ritual.
Well they did emphasize that BB did not see a car that could have been RA’s in the CPS lot when she was leaving. But it is a good point, I wonder what RA is said to have done before/after the murders. Still, only being questioned 5 years later would make it difficult for anyone to account for exactly where they were at and who they were with if they day wasn’t significant for them.
According to the Defense Memorandum directly they offered up 3 explanations for not having photos of the bullet after it was found at the scene, including that they themselves might have missed it, this is what I am talking about when I say the D really took liberties with their accusations and interpretations, and there are many more half truths like this within that document IMO:
What sense does it make to emphasize something 'not seen'? I've been to and from many places and I can't begin to imagine how many cars I haven't seen. I'm not thinking about cars in a parking lot on a typical day unless it were to have been something so obvious (bright yellow school bus with horns and sirens blazing).
Down The Hill Part 2
in the FM, pg 118, the ex-D claim RA was at home after his visit to the trails. RA had told Liggett that he left the CPS building at 1:30 pm to go home.
I think that's a fair point, in the description the D puts forth of what BB says she saw they mention she observed "one car" but that is pretty vague as to whether she knows she only saw 1 car in the lot or whether she only could describe 1 car. I think that was one of the weaker bits of this part of the FM pointing toward TL's misreporting of witness statements.
Yes it was under oath. They obtained that information from LE in sworn, recorded depositions which were attached to the FM as evidence and will likely be shown in court. We haven't yet been able to obtain the depositions since JG has sealed the FM and its exhibits.
That wasn't my question.
