Re: disregard the hat, a 2 second google search shows that peopling have said the hat may not be accurate
http://abc7chicago.com/news/police-release-suspect-sketch-in-killings-of-2-girls-from-delphi-ind/2225876/...
If they trusted the person, and they knew him, wouldn't they have said his name? If he had something like a police badge, wouldn't that be mentioned in audio? I mean, that could be info withheld from the public I guess, but seems unlikely
I would hope that the Court would rely on Dylan's desires about where he wanted to go, and not rule on what MR does in his bedroom. I'm not in favor of regulating people's sex lives. No matter how I personally don't like it.
Fair point. I just see people assuming anyone who is a RSO has their DNA on file, which can be tested against any DNA evidence, when that is not necessarily the case
Since we know police have DNA, I think it's important to keep something in mind (and below is what I also just posted on another popular forum):
Though there is a big change, prior to 2006, Indiana did not require RSOs to give DNA samples...
I'm sorry, I just don't see anything. I think people so badly want progress in this case, that they see things that aren't there.
Reminds me of a thread I read where a person was convinced they saw a dog in BG's jacket (from the Delphi murders).
It is odd. I would think that they'd only remove someone if they found remains. Maybe there is video evidence so they know what happened to her, hence she's not missing?
Here is her profile on wayback time machine...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.