Maybe we've been sleuthing long enough to understand/accept that narrowing down the right suspect is only the first step. How many people were ready to convict Jessica H's friend, the one who was with her before she rode her bike home. Who knew her case would lead where it did?
It is frustrating when we are unaware if LE has evidence or not or getting close to making an arrest or nowhere close, or are fairly certain who the perpetrator is but don't have enough evidence THAT WILL HOLD UP IN COURT.
I've whined often about how two factors, LE and trial, have to work to not cancel the other out. Does this make sense? LE is restricted in ways because of what is being demonstrated (attitude toward suspected perp) on these threads. They can't arrest someone until they feel there's enough evidence to be certain the person is the guilty one. So, you know LE is trying hard to connect the dots. Until there's an arrest, we have to assume they've not been successful so far. An arrest isn't always dependent on finding the body but best when they can/do.
If I may tell Eileen, that you and I during Kelli B.'s case, prior to the official arrest, held out from convicting, via WS threads, the person who was last seen with Kelli because he hadn't been charged with the crime. Almost everyone else seemed positive it was him all along. If we had convicted him along with the rest, we could say, "see, I was right and you (dumbs**** - felt like that) were wrong". But you know what? We are right according to the law, in that, it was what people thought happened regardless of being privy to all the evidence. I[m opposed to treating cases as if they are contests. In Kelli's case, there were other scenarios that could have played out even if not the most convenient or probable for the perp to pull off. That is called reasonable doubt. So are we to convict based on the most obvious conclusion? Wish all cases could be that neat and easy. I've watched enough cases presented on ID channel to know all cases are not simple and direct. When little evidence is presented during an investigation, how can one convict someone over the Internet?
It alarms me when the tone in a case turns to us against them. At the same time, I think it is good opportunity for debate. There isn't always a level playing field. Locals may have more inside information for example or some posters have more experience with law enforcement or legal issues in real life. Still, I remember the posters who can't appreciate any level of hesitancy to believe what they believe and then chastise those who did side with them when all is said and done. Anyway, I digress.
My arguments are never meant to bully anybody as I've witnessed during other cases. Just don't ever want to see an innocent person charged for a crime s/he didn't commit.
