This is a very good point.
I started this Trial because I have a daughter who was the same age as Abby when this occurred and at the time it impacted the sense of foreboding I had as a parent allowing her to explore and be a kid in our very rural area. It was sort of a wake up call to me that I could not assume safety. In a way, it stripped from me the feeling that I was providing a place for my kids to grow up with similar freedom and innocence as I had the gift of growing up in.
However, I did not follow this when it was a case. I was not privy to the frustrations in the investigation. I was unaware of any other POI, or theory. I quite literally started this trial as close to a juror as could be. I knew the basics. 2 girls on a hike end up leaving this life in a brutal fashion. I had seen the 2 sketches, and other than a passing wonder, how could they appear so different, no additional thought. I had heard the creepy DTH audio, and saw a still of BG but could not have described his clothing even remotely. I did not even know the defendants name.
Because I was this way and there were so many threads, I decided to try this trial in a way I have not previously. I have tried to skim the threads, and read the MSM posting of the testimony. I have not gone back to motions, or theories to consider what was previous. I have had some exposure to it from general discussion in skimming the threads, but other than the Odinism name in the threads I still do not know what exactly that is supposed to suggest happened.
With this in mind I can tell you I was shocked as I learned the COD was from sharp force trauma. I was first introduced to the idea of a box cutter from the testimony. I did pick up that was an afterthought, but then I think most reports will have additions or afterthoughts for clarity as time passes and experts reflect on their findings, so I do not find this point to be a problem. I then learned for the first time that RA reports being on the trails. I learn of witnesses that clearly identify BG as someone they saw. I agree that witness testimony is not completely aligned, but I am open in my thoughts since I too, played the game in college where we got exposed to something and then after the incident had passed were challenged to describe the person or thing. I tend to view eyewitness testimony as guidance because of this.
By this stage I was thinking. Yes, BG was on the trails. RA was on the trails, and RA seems to be wavering on his time at the trails. That wavering makes me curious, but not sure it is him.
I then hear how the crime occurs from DTH to where the crime finished. The testimony was clear, and heartbreaking, but left me with no doubt BG is the killer. But BG is not necessarily RA.
Then the bullet. I am inclined to accept the bullet marks as identifying. This may be from my background in failure analysis and decades of seeing microscopic marks and trying to assign identifying features that identify where a failure is occurring, it also could be the one time I broke my try to be a juror approach and did my own anecdotal test on cartridge extraction. Either way, I place a high value on the cartridge being linked to the gun RA owns. Especially with the unique identifier pointed out where the ejector has an anomaly which was also highlighted in a juror question to the Defense expert. I am now at RA=BG=Killer.
Then I heard confessions, and in some ways this began to make me reconsider my thoughts. I think there was plenty of crazy utterances and "confessions" that were not worthy of being presented. However, once the white van confession was presented, and the logic in how that confession started the search for a white van, and that white van was indeed found and placed near the crime scene, and at the time just right to explain the distraction mentioned in the confession. I can not accept that confession is not based on knowledge only held by the killer. Psychosis or not the details support the veracity in my opinion. I was moved and impacted by the defense and their experts. I absolutely feel there was excited utterances of guilt and that is likely due to psychosis. I also agree the isolation may have caused or exacerbated those. It still does not change the details that were backed up by the van being there at the right time in the right place.
I have listened to the defense I considered their counters. I find the counter ejector mark expert weak, in many ways he discounts his own expertise by discounting approved accepted standards, to then simply say the most important tool he has is himself....
So I as a juror would be entering the deliberations from the perspective that the state proved the case and vote guilty.
Sorry for the novel, but thought it would be interesting sharing the perspective having come in without background knowledge on all the details.
Obviously my opinion only.
