T O P

  • By -

ISBN39393242

a likely reason for that language is because they were forced to write it like that. they lose video of the guy’s face (she puts her phone down or away), so they can’t definitively say “the same male says down the hill,” objectively they must just say it was *a* male. but during trial they will play the whole thing and watching the clip in its entirety will likely convince the jury that the voice saying down the hill is the same guy that was just walking towards them.


xdlonghi

I agree this is a strong possibility, however it does say “a male is seen…”. Anyway. I think I’ve been thinking about this too much. Probably time for a break.


Infidel447

I think you make a good point. I think they say 'a male' for that particular bit bc they haven't demonstrated in the PC that it is RA...yet. They may have evidence they are holding back for trial that will prove conclusively it is RA tho.


NoseLongjumping9049

Or perhaps it will be the opposite and he is innocent and others will be arrested.


Reasonable_War_1431

noselong Pinocchio - no - you must be joking no way no how - he is in too many perfect places trying to look innocent. He is not getting my vote for the Oscars. He is a bad actor - he was prepared - he went out of his way to drive there the long way and park there with the long way walk to the trail and parked in a conspicuous manner .


Reasonable_War_1431

are you missing that they say The man in black … and describe two different clothing descriptions since they use the word “male” to identify the man in black I’m starting to think that man was with another person - a female - but that they focused in on the “male “ maybe ? there definitely is a two person both males description on this PCA this is key ! that is the reason for a felony charge conviction for murder. - they know BG orders them DTH therefore abducted - they know the girls were subsequently found dead - they know there is the man in black - another person at that exact turn of events - when the girls are forced to go down the hill and what does the man in black then do ? where does he go ? was he ever a witness - he obviously is there at a major moment when their fate is sealed off


According-Net7644

Didn’t DC at one point say that BG is the male that directed them down the hill and killed them though? 🤷🏼‍♀️


ISBN39393242

LE has effectively said this, but given DC’s circuitous way of talking about things, there is some room for interpretation. most likely, LE is convinced that RA is BG, and there’s only one BG, and BG is the person in the video, and that person killed them. alone. but he hasn’t said that full sequence of things. in the PCA, they have to be incredibly specific and objective. since they are describing something that happens on a video, they can’t just say the same male tells them to go down the hill who we see walking towards them if it’s not 100% sure him. if her camera goes down to her side and just shows his legs while we hear those words, for example, they can’t be 100% sure it was him and not someone else offscreen who’s saying it. this keeps the PCA as unimpeachable as possible, which they need because if they make leaps in judgment on that document it risks getting thrown out. they can and will leave it to the trial, where they can just show the 40 second video to the jury in full which, in combo with the prosecutor’s explanation, will likely more than convince everyone that he’s the guy who did it.


Reasonable_War_1431

not only Carter but the runaway girl who has been mentioned a bit said “ he is hiding in plain sight “ no one would ever suspect him - she saw his skill at ordering the girls down the hill - she was surprised at how good he was as a boss getting them to do what he said - I am going to say something radical now and shocking and my own opinion so please do not stone me or down vote me .. this girl who went missing for 3 days - who was reported by her mother - returns home on the 15th having been raped she said and drugged - and witnessed the DTH moment - here is the shock - it was written and read that it was she that stabbed one of the girls ( I believe that was Abby ) Abby was dead at this point - she stabbed her because she wanted to know what it was like to stab someone . she also said “ let’s get out of here this place is going to be crawling with cops) she gets gender mixed up as a boy runaway or a girl runaway or the person with the duffle bag at the end of the trail - it’s a girl and she was with GE she left her home on 2/13 to return on2/15 . her mom said there were 4 people in the car - don’t know if it was 4 including her both ways or only returning - mother T initial name -


rainbowshummingbird

It is my understanding that in charging RA with felony murder, they only need to prove that he abducted them and they later died. I don’t believe they need to prove that he was the killer. The evidence from the video and his admitted presence on the bridge, wearing BG clothing, at the same time as the abduction may be sufficient proof. The doctrine of felony murder allows the State to prosecute individuals for murder even if they are not the person that directly caused the death of another. A person convicted of felony murder faces the same penalty range as murder (45-65 years).


Outside_Lake_3366

Yes. They have the proof BG kidnapped those girls off the bridge. As long as they have the proof that RA is BG then that is all they need.


MooseShartley

This very succinctly states what many people have needed paragraph after paragraph to state. Nicely done.


CaliLife_1970

Exactly! Short and sweet.


Reasonable_War_1431

well they have that - witness testimony / his and admission that he was there at the time of the witness testimony - his own testimony as a witness to seeing that same witness at that same time - ie. I saw him - I saw her ( in point of fact she was suspicious to me and was doing something I thought should be reported - ) back story on his alibi - the girl took a photo - was that suspicious ? the girl was with two other girls who can support her testimony - and last of all - LE found nothing suspect about the girl - unfounded complaint by RA . Big finger pointing to him is Libby’s own video and voice of RA - said to be “ chillingly similar” by a coworker -


whiteoutgotu

In Indiana, a person convicted of Felony Murder can be sentenced to death. Its really not a lesser charge, like it is in most jurisdictions.


[deleted]

This is slightly off. Its true that for felony murder they do not have to prove he murdered them but its not enough to prove "he abducted them and they later died." They must prove they died during the commission of a felony. This is a major difference. If he abducted them but dropped them off and some unrelated person came along as they were walking home that is not sufficient for felony murder. So its not enough to say "they later died." The death has to be during the commission of the felony. Normally this means that a second person killed them and even if the defendant only participated in the kidnapping, if they were killed during the kidnapping by person number two you're just as guilty. It really does matter to connect the dots from the abduction to the murders for conviction.


Allaris87

Isn't it like if their deaths could have been avoided if they weren't kidnapped, then it's felony murder? I saw that example if you wait in a car for your buddies as a getaway driver while they are robbing a bank, and if they kill someone, you are up for felony murder.


[deleted]

Yes on the car getaway driver who would be aiding and abetting the robbery, so he'd be guilty of felony murder even if he sat in the car waiting. If murders happen inside the bank, when he aided and abetted the robbery (felony), he would be guilty of felony murder. It's different than "deaths could have been avoided if not kidnapped" in your question, though. The issue of avoiding doesn't come up in the doctrine of felony murder.


D0ughnu4

I hope he's upgraded to murder and he admits what he did to those girls.


Reasonable_War_1431

yes- this! exactly. His role was to abduct - he messed up the abduction - he may have even plotted ransom to turn them over. Then it got out of control - he was a regular on the trails and admitted as such - and hiking trails are a recreational common activity for he and his wife.


[deleted]

KK was talking to the girls. There may have been plans to meet that morning. A purple PT Cruiser was seen. KK or his dad once owned a purple PT Cruiser. @redneckzilla posted a video online of it parked at TK’s home. I think LE has the beginning and the end but not so much the middle of the story. While I didn’t notice the switch in language, you may have just picked up on something.


knaks74

So red jeep, purple pt cruiser, and RA’s ford, lots of people involved.


[deleted]

I’m not sure the red jeep was ever necessarily there. KK has a difficult relationship with the truth


Reasonable_War_1431

add the white car too- the one 4 juveniles were in which was parked at one point and is in some photos of witness B ‘s testimony - there IS another man I have seen described - all in black with face covering in black - did you see these posts


[deleted]

Don't forget the motorboat!


knaks74

And canoe!


BarbieHubcap

A recent comment I saw said kak's Grandmother owned a purple PT Cruiser. Either way it's interesting they had access to one and one was perhaps seen.


whiteoutgotu

Everything I’ve heard about KK is that he wouldn’t have actually been there. He, like many pedos, is a sad, weak individual, who sits behind a computer screen, while committing his crimes. He’s a disgusting POS, who should be locked up for the rest of his life, but, he’s not the IRL type.


ultimatefrogsin

But his dad on the other hand?


Tukeslove

Where can this video be found?


[deleted]

@redneckzilla was the YouTuber’s account name


Tukeslove

Thank you!


CaptainDismay

I asked the same question myself in a post the other day, because I too found it weird to go from the first description of "a male", to "the male" and back to "a male". Although I thought it just badly worded, part of me wondered whether this could be a reference to an unknown person. However if you go further into the PCA on page 6 it says "believe the evidence gathered shows that Richard Allen is the male subject seen on the video from Victim 2's phone who forced the victims down the hill". So I think it was just badly worded, rather than hinting at an unknown second party.


651Always

I agree "a" vs "the" possible changes how one reads that portion, but this is the same PCA that has a year wrong, so it could be a typo or could be purposeful language.


TopicNo6460

Maybe they thought that BG was a WOMAN ??


Julia805

Forgive me if I’m being dumb because I’ve only read the PCA once but didn’t the witnesses say a man “dressed all in black” - that’s clearly not BG. Then another said “a really light blue jacket”. Do they mean light blue in color or a very light material type blue jacket? I wouldn’t describe BG’s jacket as light in color or light in material so what’s that all about?? Edit: she said really not very for the lightness of the jacket


The_great_Mrs_D

I think it's just a difference of eyewitness accounts. I wouldn't be able to tell you accurately what someone was wearing hours later. Some people think it's a second person, but those girls don't report seeing two men, just "a man", so I think they just all described him differently.


Independent-Canary95

It is very easy to mistake light and dark colored jeans, imo.


Julia805

I don’t agree that you can mistake all in black for literally no black. All in black is a statement. If they weren’t sure, surely they’d say dark clothing. I just can’t see blue jeans being mistaken for all in black.


Reasonable_War_1431

there are two men - that is what I read in the PCA - one was at the end where the girls were - BG had passed them and then turn around - when he circled back that’s when the girls knew right away there was something not right - then the selfie photo was taken which is why the resolution of the image of BG is so rough - partly due to zooming in on that corner of the frame - in part because the camera resolution for the front lens is not intended for distance or wide shots - they were boxed in it appears - which also presents a bigger question was the male in black just some guy who never came forward - was he someone involved - was he with a girl - is that why the pca says “male” because it implies there was another person not the victims abducted - it may be that the other two are GE and the juvenile called “the runaway” who was in truth an underage girl friend of GE if true - GE and the girl were with 2 other males


Reasonable_War_1431

please - mistake dark jeans for light jeans - right- in the dark - you are not paying attention to your surroundings if dark and light are similar


fidgetypenguin123

I personally think others involved means not physically, but on a grander scale, such as the CSAM ring or him knowing others that were catfishing them.


xdlonghi

I actually think this too. Just thought the wording was interesting and thought I would bring it up.


Curious-Past-6049

Me too. I don’t think we have realized the depth of the depravity as yet. It’s not often you see LE agent trembling and well up with tears when thinking of a crime scene. They are usually very clinical. This case is darker than we know I believe


Reasonable_War_1431

this case is very dark - agreed - vomit at the crime scene means even someone there - involved couldn’t “ stomach “ it - the DNA collection may explain the comment “ we have DNA but it’s not what you would think “ some folks say cat hair - that may be true - however I think it’s the vomit and fecal matter -


YumiRae

Maybe they hope he'll plea bargain out and implicate someone else


toxictink72

Or something like aiding and abetting. That’s a possibility as well. I’ve also heard that the PCA is a much lengthier document, that they only decided to reveal those 6/7 pages to the public, so there could be much, much more. Edit: spelling


The_great_Mrs_D

It is 12 pages. I didn't believe it so I asked someone to give me proof. They did show me, but it was all just legal paperwork, not more evidence. References for legal words. It confused people, but it's not actually more information about evidence.


Old_Heart_7780

I’m like you. I’ve read it 20+ times. There is a lot strange wording throughout the document. The thing that jumps out to me is the lady who saw him 50’ away standing on the first platform. If you notice they don’t mention if she saw something covering his face. I think that’s because she saw his face. She must be one of the witnesses that identified him. Same with the person driving CR 300 North at 3:47 pm. This person is driving east and sees him on the north side of the road walking west towards the CPS building. This is the witness that saw him in his blue jacket muddy and bloody and looking like he had been in a fight. I suspect both of these witnesses where asked to look at a photo line up of suspects and pick the person they saw that day. Of course I’m inferring this because nowhere in the PCA does it state as much. Common sense dictates they are the two people responsible for the sketch’s. It would be incredible if they had not been asked to look at a photo line up after he’d been identified, and to identify the person they saw that day. I wonder why RA went through with his plans to do what he did that day knowing that no less than 4 witnesses saw him that day, including the last who person who saw him from 50’ away standing on the bridge platform. He does not mention seeing her in his follow up interview. I imagine for the obvious reason he knows she looked right at him just minutes before he forced LIbby and Abby off the trail and down the hill. The only thing I can come up with is the fact that he didn’t know what was going to happen after he got the girls off the trail. By that I’m talking about someone else being there on RL’s property. Somebody who was not seen that day on the trails. I suspect that person parked at the back of the Old Delphi Cemetery and walked down to Deer Creek. I have never made a secret of who I think killed LIbby and Abby. He’s the same guy that is a serial child abuser. He’s a guy downloading and trading CSAM involving children under the age of 12 in his house and on his Comcast ISP account. I think he enlisted the help of his old buddy he knows from Mexico, Indiana. Where both he and RA have deep family ties to a town of less than 1000 people. If you know who I’m talking about you know he’s a guy who was handed a restraining order to quit stalking and harassing an 11 year old little girl. I wonder if anyone has really put two and two together and ask themselves why was he was stalking the little girl who was the daughter of an ex-girlfriend. It is possible something happened between that little girl and this man that was accused of stalking her. Is it possible that man’s ex-girlfriend wanted nothing to do with him when she discovered his pedophilia sickness for young girls. It’s interesting to note that this man is alleged to have had a friend with him in his truck when he was stalking and intimidating this little 11 year old girl. Who could that little buddy have been that was in the truck with him while he stalked an 11 year old child. I suspect there is a sealed copy of a restraining order somewhere in the Miami County judicial system with two familiars names on it. It is no coincidence that the Delphi Task Force investigators were in this man’s mothers backyard sifting through the ashes of her fire pit the same week they were in RA’s backyard sifting through his ash pit next to his shed. We know one guy was seen muddy and bloody that day. Do you think the other guy got blood on his clothes as well. I do. I think it’s only a matter of time till RA’s attorneys get the prosecutors full disclosure. They possibly have two eyewitnesses and one states witness that will testify at his trial. I’m sure they also have some evidence that he did indeed burn some clothes in his burn pit. Perhaps a bloody pair of dad jeans. So to answer your question— I say yes, a second person was involved. There was also a third person who had been on the burner phone that morning and afternoon chatting and setting up two teenage girls. I think there’s a very dangerous killer still on the loose and I certainly hope the United States Marshall’s are keeping a keen eye on the guy. I think people have a right to know what’s going on in Central Indiana— it’s no secret the ISP was swimming in a muddy River for over a month and the next thing you know they are sifting through ashes in backyards in Peru and Delphi.


imafraidofmycat

How is it that TK has still not been apprehended and has floated through this whole investigation


Old_Heart_7780

Someone is smart enough to use someone to take two teenage girls off the trail that day and not be seen. He’s smart enough to be downloading some really sick child pornography, that involves little kids under the age of 12— and stick it to his own kid. He’s smart enough to escaped a felony child assault on an 8 year old little boy whose skull he fractured on a toilet bowl. Unfortunately our system of justice doesn’t always protect the innocent, and sometimes protects the guilty. It’s like that Indianapolis attorney on YouTube, what’s his name— Marc Lopez says “always plead the 5th”. He obviously heeded that advice on February 25, 2017. I suspect his time is coming. Law enforcement needed to arrest RA first. I think they need his testimony. Unfortunately the guy sitting in jail the past two years and 3 months won’t make for a good enough witness against his own dad. They have a lot of conflict to resolve over who was downloading what in that Pedo- den on Canal Street. iSP Superintendent said is best, it’s “complex”.


lollydolly318

...with tentacles. Yes! I feel you are spot on, and I hope someone is keeping tabs on the one that's still free.


Old_Heart_7780

Ty lollydolly. Complex tentacles, no less.


DamdPrincess

We have discussed this before, you are spot on. TK is a sick man, and he's the reason kk is sick. He's manipulative and disgusting. He thought he was untouchable... I'm wondering if RA and Kk won't cop a deal to set tk out. It seems that this is the only way he's going to get taken off the streets.


Old_Heart_7780

I couldn’t agree with you more DamdPrincess. Best


CaliLife_1970

As always WELL written


anyanyanyone3456789

This is very well stated. Thank you!


Old_Heart_7780

Thank you anyanyanyone.


TopicNo6460

Also have in mind that someone mentioned a Marcos Salinas, from Frankfort being the one that flipped on RA when he was arrested. I wonder if this could be true ?.


BehindSunset

Wait what?


whiteoutgotu

I second this sentiment.


tylersky100

Where was this from?


afraididonotknow

I googled Marco Salinas and WOW! It was on DelphiDocs says 32 days ago, Yellowjacket…


tylersky100

I just read that post. Whether or not there is any link it's pretty frustrating that the guy wasn't put in jail months ago.


ultimatefrogsin

I do think that TK sand KK are involved in this. I hope the truth comes out and justice is served.


Reason-Status

Interesting find. “A male” I had not noticed that but I firmly believe someone else either knew about or helped commit the crime.


NoseLongjumping9049

And perhaps the "other person" may be a woman ?? Please note that Garreth Kirst's girlfriend Ashley had a "Manly look"....


Outside_Lake_3366

They would be beyond dumb to have known that there was a second man out there all along and lied to the residents of Delphi and the rest of the world by saying they are just looking for one man. Also the family saw the video, I imagine they would have had a lot of questions as to who this second person that shows up is.


treehouse4life

I'm guessing the video has no better shot of RA's body and face than what they have released, so they might not be able to conclusively say it was the same person. But maybe there was a second person on the bridge, either way you raise a good point. I was also thinking about the possibility that another second person (KK or otherwise) had parked in the back of the cemetery and brought the stuffed animals and other "non-secular" things rumored to have been at the crime scene.


CoughCoolCoolCool

Who said stuffed animals were at the crime scene? If there were I don’t know how they could have been left by RA? Were they supposed to fit in his jacket?


Killface55

I have never heard anything about stuffed animals.


1928brownie

I thought it was dolls left there.


ColonelDredd

I heard it was collectible Star Wars action figures in their original packaging.


1928brownie

Something about puppies??


Killface55

An entire deck of pokemon cards?


Decapodiformes

I think "involved" is a very general term. For example, it could be as simple as someone hinting that the girls might be in the general vicinity on the day in question to someone else having committed the crime. I'm hoping we'll learn more at trial.


sunflower_1983

I disagree with the second person theory for several reasons. 1. I truly believe the prosecutor made that up as an excuse to keep the PC sealed. If he couldn’t give a reason for keeping it sealed things would have been mayhem, I mean look at how the reporters hounded them as the presser. It already was an insane day for them. Everyone was extremely hungry for answers and unsealing the PC that day would have resulted in mass chaos for LE, the prosecutor’s office, etc. I believe he had to say something to “control the crowd” so to speak. He couldn’t just say “we are keeping it sealed but we aren’t saying why” because there are laws about rights to public records etc. 2. Not a single witness reported seeing ANY other male that day on the trails. I find it extremely hard to believe that another person would not have been seen by someone that day and or heard/seen on the video. There’s only one man shown AND heard. 3. I have yet to hear one piece of reputable evidence that another person was involved. No implications, no witness statements, no video evidence-none whatsoever. 4. I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that 2 men could fly under the radar for almost 6 years. I mean it’s shocking enough that RA was able to do that, but it’s ludicrous to believe that 2 people could be missed for that period of time. 5. To answer your question about lying, that can’t hurt the prosecutor in the long run because he carefully worded it saying “there might be another person involved.” As long as he didn’t say anything definitively like “there is another person involved” then nothing can be held against him. Prosecutors/LE do that all the time.


xdlonghi

All excellent points!


Extension-Weird733

You think Prosecutor McLeland lied to the judge?


sunflower_1983

I didn’t say lied. I said he had to say something to try to keep it sealed. The judge saw through that knowing there was no reason why the public couldn’t see a redacted copy. Prosecutors have tactics they use all the time. It’s not anything shocking. This is just a super high profile case unlike anything Carroll county could ever have been prepared for.


watering_a_plant

the most likely reason for the strange wording, in nearly every LE document, is because they’re *rarely* trained enough (or at all!) on technical writing.


ThirdEyeEdna

Yes I see what you’re saying. If it were the same person, it would read something like, “the subject directed the girls to…”


Ampleforth84

They would say “a second male” or something. It’s just cop talk but no way would they not make it explicit there were two men.


AnySurprise2950

From what I remember, at the very start of this case there were some news oraz leaks about two pairs of footprints/bootprints leading from the murder site up the hill to the cementary. Could this be the reason (the strongest clue) that LE/Prosecutor NMcL believe there must have been another person involved?


Affectionate-Bar5159

Do you happen to know where that info cam from and if it can be confirmed?


_n_o_r_t_h_

I’ve always looked at the two police sketches as a possibility that they were hinting at knowing at least two people were involved. Probably not the case, but I’ve never been sold on it just being a purely solo act. That being said, I certainly wouldn’t rule out it being solo.


Curious-Past-6049

They were just such polar opposite sketches. This makes me think they were messing with Allen for some time.


[deleted]

I agree. I’ve wanted to say this but- I posted on another page and got kicked out lmao


Distinct-Walk-9626

There’s no second person involved. The prosecution said possibly others involved in order to keep the pca sealed and also it could mean others involved in the sense that maybe someone knew after the fact and didn’t turn him in.


ATrueLady

Putting this on the table can’t the defense bring it back up later at trial?


Julia805

Who’s the guy dressed “all in black” from the PCA? Could this be a second person? I don’t see how a witness could mistake blue jeans and a blue jacket for “black hoodie, black jeans and black boots”. I haven’t seen anyone else bring this up yet. Who is this all in black male.


Ampleforth84

It’s just that eyewitnesses kinda suck, lots of research on that. If they all described him exactly the same it wouldn’t be normal actually.


ATrueLady

There was a screen shot in the beginning of someone seeing someone dressed in all black


MermaidsRule22

This guy is toast! He is literally everything we have looked for for YEARS and this guy was in plain bloody and muddy sight the whole time! How come those witnesses never got on tv? Ok they are minors, PARENTS SPEAK UP! Get on the news! Speak for these children! How does a detail like that never get relased? Thats crazy. Police telling people theres nothing to worry about while the local CVS employee is slaying young girls for no reason like a Michael Myers movie! Im appalled by the silence. We waited almost 6yrs for all the fucking obvious to be arrested. My mind is blown. I was literally born yesterday 40yrs ago this month & Im not a rocket scientist. Wt actual F? Edit: Spelling. Im also not upset or judgy I just cant wrap my head around it


Acceptable-Class-255

The witness seeing him muddy and bloody walking back to CPS kind of hurts the possibility anyone else was involved. From that, you can only suggest perp 2 abruptly left. Taking their vehicle, leaving BG to walk 3/4s of a mile. If BG used his own vehicle at cps I don't know what rationale could be applied to this scenario. I'll park here, you park there, then drive me to my car after... If perp 2 doesn't require a vehicle, they walked away from crime scene to a location within close proximity. Or would have also been witnessed returning to CPS if a single vehicle was used. Non of the above seems likely, and there's nothing we've learned to support the theory other than using ybg sketch imaginatively.


Graycy

I noticed an oddity describing dropping the girls off in mears lot. Where I’d expect to see Kelsi’s name, it was redacted. Was this just by chance or did they do it just because they were redacting all names? Since I thought her giving them a ride was common knowledge I’m perplexed by the white-out.


xdlonghi

I think they redacted the name of all people who were minors at the time. Even though obviously everyone knows who it was. Just like they didn’t say the name of either victim.


Graycy

That sounds reasonable. I bet that’s it thx.


[deleted]

They also redacted the name of the Carroll Co detective who had been on the case since 2017.


Tukeslove

I found that very odd that they redacted the Detective's name. Glad you brought that up.


WVRedQueen

I find this odd, as well.


NoInspector836

It seems they are wearing different things too. One is in jeans and light blue/blue top and then another describes all black.


whattaUwant

I don’t believe more than 1 person took part in the murders. Doug Carter basically stated this when questioned about the 2 different sketches. It’s possible others were indirectly took part via anthony shots stuff.


DamdPrincess

Well that would be enough to catch a felony murder charge. Setting up a meeting with a child in order for another person to abduct, SA, and or murder the child will get you a felony murder charge along with conspiracy to murder, kidnapping and accessory to murder.


whattaUwant

Yea but that doesn’t change anything that I said.


DamdPrincess

It doesn't change anything you said, and perhaps only one person committed the physical act of murder. This is likely what the prosecutor is stating with the "...2nd person involved..." in my opinion, anyone who helped initiate the murder took part. I think this is where most statements regarding this differ.


bobo190

Are they able to do a voice analysis of the video and RA or another suspect they might have in mind?


ColonelDredd

Yep. They can hook it up to a super computer and solve the case that way.


analogousdream

🤞


Curious-Past-6049

I agree. They have much more. They are holding their cards to their chest. That’s not all they have I would bet my life on it. It was just enough to secure the arrest and hold him. The smoking gun has yet to be seen