Where is this Memory Card? And don't the side of that light look smashed in?
only other time it is mentioned.
I agree with this...I have always said I am not completely certain of SA's innocence, as well. My only problem with this concept is if SA did do it, why on earth did they have to go to such lengths to completely disregard ANY type of LEGITIMATE investigation into this matter? No looking into ALL suspects in order to rule ppl out, a lot of forensic evidence that could have been tested and wasn't (such as the 8 fingerprints found on the RAV4 that were never tested for anyone but SA), why wasn't the crime scene processed properly with the correct forensic specialists allowed to document, examine, and recover evidence correctly? I don't know, it just seems like to me if SA HAD done this even partly as they said he did, why did they have to go to so much trouble to make it LOOK like he did it. Shouldn't Some of the evidence been there without them having to mess with EVERYTHING the way it looks like they did?
Yeah I don't know. Was swabbed for DNA but never tested why? It had her name on it, so I wonder if this was a work Compact Flash Card she would overnight to them after her shoots to get them in the magazine on time? Why would the case be in the front and the disk in the back. such an odd place for a lone disk to be lying don't you think? Could someone have deleted what was on it before pulling it from the camera? could the deleted information be pulled from it? Just one of those odd pieces of evidence.I have done a lot of reading Mystic.... I do not think it was looked at, or if it was, it was nothing worth mentioning. Or who knows.... is there a chance that it was agreed upon earlier to not bring it up? (kinda like blurring the numbers on the phone bills or not putting them up during the trial) Pre-trial motions... deciding what they will agree on, what is inadmissible, etc.
I agree with this...I have always said I am not completely certain of SA's innocence, as well. My only problem with this concept is if SA did do it, why on earth did they have to go to such lengths to completely disregard ANY type of LEGITIMATE investigation into this matter? No looking into ALL suspects in order to rule ppl out, a lot of forensic evidence that could have been tested and wasn't (such as the 8 fingerprints found on the RAV4 that were never tested for anyone but SA), why wasn't the crime scene processed properly with the correct forensic specialists allowed to document, examine, and recover evidence correctly? I don't know, it just seems like to me if SA HAD done this even partly as they said he did, why did they have to go to so much trouble to make it LOOK like he did it. Shouldn't Some of the evidence been there without them having to mess with EVERYTHING the way it looks like they did?
Yeah I don't know. Was swabbed for DNA but never tested why? It had her name on it, so I wonder if this was a work Compact Flash Card she would overnight to them after her shoots to get them in the magazine on time? Why would the case be in the front and the disk in the back. such an odd place for a lone disk to be lying don't you think? Could someone have deleted what was on it before pulling it from the camera? could the deleted information be pulled from it? Just one of those odd pieces of evidence.
If it wasn't worth mentioning, maybe that is why that journal was never mentioned again either.
My thinking on their not noticing the Rav4:
Why would they notice that one vehicle among so many others on the property? Were they watching TV to be aware of TH missing? They might have not been thinking TH or her stuff could be on the property, so why look for it. These guys aren't "crime sleuthers" looking for evidence, they're doing their own thing.
Or, maybe they did notice it and either didn't care -or- didn't connect it to TH's disappearance at the time they might have seen it.
I was thinking she was thrown back there with her purse and the disk and the pen fell out of her purse. What do you think?
Just thinking this thought....Could TH have hit a ditch or something on her way there which caused the damage? Then, she gets to Avery's with the damage and he notices it and offers to help her find a new one in the lot. I can't remember--did the cadaver dog hit on other cars? Could that possible mean she was walking through that area? I wonder where in relation to the other "Toyota" vehicles on the lot the dog hit, since the cars were lumped together by make/model?
I'm going to go back to 2005 thread and see if I can find the pictures of those other vehicles....
Why is the assumption being made that the damage to TH's SUV was done that either that day or before she was killed?
It could have happened days or weeks before; not related to the murder. Alternatively the damage could have happened as the SUV was driven on the Avery lot to its resting place. Unless someone knows and informs the public, it will be one of those unknowns, just like there are unknowns in most cases.
Avery is certainly not going to tell us, TH can't, no one (can or will) believe BD. In the scheme of the case, it's not something that makes or breaks the case.
As for Earl noticing or not noticing the SUV on the property, why should he have? According to what and whose requirement? He either did notice it but he's saying he didn't, or he truly didn't notice it until it was found and seized and then he heard about it. Again, it's one of those unknowns that can't be proved either way.
I assume if anyone knew that TH was in an accident prior to Oct 31 2005. someone would have known about it. Possibly a police report. The fact that there is no information on it, I can only assume is because it didn't fit with them convicting an innocent man and his innocent nephew. The point is the CONFLICT OF INTEREST never really looked into it did they. They were to busy making appearances to the public pretending to recuse themselves while they framed him.