I listened this podcast when it first came out, so I’m probably misremembering this, but the key thing about the case to me was point 7:
They had detailed witness testimony which fit the evidence AND the witness was able to show the police the location of the victim’s car which backed up his story. So it is hard to explain another version of events where the witness was not actually involved in the crime. I’m curious if any of this new evidence points to him as being involved.
They had detailed witness testimony which fit the evidence AND the witness was able to show the police the location of the victim’s car which backed up his story. So it is hard to explain another version of events where the witness was not actually involved in the crime. I’m curious if any of this new evidence points to him as being involved.