I think they know who he is, I don't think they have enough evidence to charge him. I found someone who has a tie to the area, who was wearing that exact same hat.
I about fell off my chair when that sketch came out. :scared:
I'm waiting patiently to find out if it is the same guy.
This has bothered me also. Such a strange statement... Why even say it if not 100% sure? Maybe they do know who it is, and their basically saying this so people won't continue to accuse someone that people suspect, that has blue eyes.How far away from another person would one have to be to observe that the eyes on the other person are not blue?
How far away from another person would one have to be to observe that the eyes on the other person are not blue?
This has bothered me also. Such a strange statement... Why even say it if not 100% sure? Maybe they do know who it is, and their basically saying this so people won't continue to accuse someone that people suspect, that has blue eyes.
I doubt that, but their must be a reason.
Maybe the witness had a very close and memorable encounter. Perhaps the witness was assaulted by the suspect. Or maybe he was hitchhiking, the witness picked him up, and it was a memorable encounter.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
BBM
LE said it. Just like they said don't focus on the hat.
I know there isn't much to sleuth these days and this post is not directed at you in any way but sleuthing the detectives and why they said something takes the focus off the main subject. I think you summed up the potential "why's" in your last paragraph very nicely.
Point is they said it. They said it was what the witness said.
I don't want this to sound negative or wrong I mean it with the best intention. However, the witness may be Libby or Abby or indeed what was recorded on the phone. We just don't know.
KR
Reacher
I don't want this to sound negative or wrong I mean it with the best intention. However, the witness may be Libby or Abby or indeed what was recorded on the phone. We just don't know.
KR
Reacher
I think we have discussed the" hat" backwards and forwards. Can we move on?
If LE knew that, it would have been stated at the start don't you think? If you remember what they said about the video turned into a still they said the outcome was the best they could do.
My point was more that it doesn't matter who the witness was. If LE thought knowing who commented was vital to the case I would expect they would have put forth that into.
They said a witness made the remark.
They said don't focus on the hat.
So why dissect what they said?
And I appreciate your intention. We're all trying to solve the same riddle here.
they had a suspect in tis case possibly. http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/cr...ource=infinity-scroll-summary-siderail-latest
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.