Newthoughts
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2019
- Messages
- 2,158
- Reaction score
- 14,055
Why would they say homicide (and after the body was discovered but before the inquest 'potential homicide') and not that they're treating the death as suspicious?A lot has been made of the police declaring Libby’s death as a homicide investigation after the PM.
Rather than think there’s some quite obvious forensic evidence that indicates this, I think it could be quite likely that no definitive evidence was found to indicate homicide BUT by the same token, nothing was found to rule out homicide.
Given what the police know about PR and his movements that night and that homicide can’t be ruled out, I think they’ve proceeded as though it is homicide.
Investigations can rule things out as well as in and some PM specialised tests can take up to 12 weeks to come back
If homicide is neither definitively ruled in nor out surely the term used would be that they are treating the death as suspicious. It's a phrasing I've heard used many times before and it's more accurate. No matter how they're proceeding (and my opinion is they suspect homicide) and what they believe - wouldn't their language in public be more circumspect?
After PRs arrest and first unrelated charge it was still abduction. I can't remember when exactly it changed to kidnapping but I remember it was well before Libby's body was found.Did LE change the disapperance of Libby from abduction to kidnapping earlier or later in the investigation of Libbys disappearance? Before Libby was found.sadly.If so
how significant was that wording?A worse charge?
I'm not clear on the significance in the change in wording either, but it was definitely a change.