Remember it was not Ricky who was TAPED at the Wal-Mart in Ohio buying a shovel, a hat, gloves, and a tarp. Doug was! That receipt was found in his vehicle. The tarp wrapping was found in Venus' parents' yard.
The tire tread found in the field across from Venus' parents' home matched Doug's truck tires.
Oh and then there were the pay as you go cell phones that DOUG bought.
I'm sure there was more but I'm going from memory. Ricky was nowhere near Michigan when Venus was abducted.
He was taped at an ATM, in Doug's apartment building, and he went in to pay a bill for Doug. All part of the plan. His testimony matched all the physical evidence.
Doug was convicted of murder. Not only because of Ricky's testimony. Because of the facts of the case. People are not convicted from witness testimony alone. They had plenty on Doug.
There is no way Doug's parents believe Ricky killed Venus.
They know what there son did.
I haven't seen the Wal-Mart video so I can't say if it was him or not. I do know that typically those sorts of video are not clear enough to identify anyone conclusively, so until I see it I'll have doubts about it.
The shovel, hat, gloves and tarp were not found. Surely he would have kept some of those things if he was careless enough to leave the reciept and tarp packaging lying around, particularly the hat and gloves...where are they?
The tarp packaging was presented to LE by the father. If it was found by LE I would be more inclined to consider it, but the providence is tainted because of who provided it. There is no way of knowing if that was the tarp packaging from the video. If it was from unrelated material previously handled by DS that would be one explanation for the fingerprint. The cover was not definitively linked to Ohio.
The video of "Spenser" in Virginia was obscured. They relied on Spenser to say it was him.
The eye witness testimony of Spencer at the Law office was from someone who had seen neither man before and was collected some time after the event. Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable under those circumstances.
The purpchase of the cell phones suffers from the same issue. It was based on the recollection of a salesperson many weeks after the event. And in any case Spenser was known to have visited DS. Who is to say that he didn't take the cell phones?
Remember, there was the mysterious man who took the midnight swim in the lake near the scene the day before who bears an uncanny resemblance to Spenser. What are the odds of that?
The tire tracks were not matched to DS's vehicle, they were just judged to be the same make. No physical evidence connecting the vehicle to the scene was uncovered. The truck was found some blocks away from where DS lived. What would be the point of that? Surely it would be more logical to leave the vehicle where it was normaly found, unless whoever had it didnt have access to that parking area (which I presume is keyed).
Depending on the clarity of the video involved (which would clear up who was where), the alternative scenario is that Spencer is a nut who took it upon himself to solve DS's problem when he visited DS. In that situation what could DS do? If he says nothing he gets charged with murder, and if he says what Spenser did, then he still gets charged with murder since no one would believe that he wasn't in on it.
Most of the evidence against DS was testimony from Spencer. If Spencer was the one who did it then of course he would know the details, and of course the details would match the other evidence. How did they find Spencer? Did they do a search on his home? How did they get him to talk?, because we know he didn't come to them. That was something not explored, and it seems to me that it is very relevant to the case.
Remember, DS did not present a defence at trial, nor publically before or after, so we have no way of knowing what his story is. He took the effort to try to get custody of the kids. What was the deal with that? Then there is the frankly bizarre behaviour of VS's father. If the evidence against DS was so conclusive (and remember that the results of the investigation have to be made available to the defence) what would be the point of going to trial pleading not guilty, and then not mounting a defence? Surely it would make more sense in that case to take a deal in exchange for the location of the body, claim emotional irrationality and get a lesser sentence that let him out of prison eventually, instead of a life sentence. It doesn't make sense. And why was there basically no defence? They didn't seem to challenge any of the states evidence, even though much of it was very weak. They didn't seem to do anything. The only thing that makes sense is that they were blindsided and felt that the only option open to them was to appeal on procedural grounds to get a new trial, and they didnt want to present their case until that happened.
The whole investigation and subsequent trial seemed odd to me. Right from the start they immediately focussed on DS even though he was living halfway across the country. The whole point of the investigation appeared to be to convict DS, not investigate the case. I could accept that they might eventually get there, but not that they would head there immediately and not look at anything else. Then there was the trial itself. The overall weak nature of the evidence, the bizarre allegations (which IMO situations like that require a higher level of proof) of conduct, the allegations that evidence was not presented to the defence, or not in a timely manner and then the complete failure to defend in trial.
The whole thing just did not seem particularly solid to me, and very strange, so I am left wondering.