:seeya: Yep ... that is just an unbelievable amount of witnesses.

:thinking: And more than 600 is about what, half the town there ? :dunno:

No doubt there will be a lot of witnesses for this case considering the number of perps = 3, and the 2 brothers who were charged but then those charges were dropped ... Oh, and the perp who is now deceased, but had an immunity deal. Then add in the LE witnesses, TBI, local LE, FBI, etc., the forensic experts, the two men who found the remains, friends, family, etc., so lots of witnesses ...

JMO but I will not be surprised if this case does not go to trial ... now, will they plea :dunno: ... but there's been so much hink in this case that nothing will surprise me.

Oh, and btw, I will be pizzed IF this case does not go to trial because I want to hear and see all the evidence -- I want to know the truth of what happened to Holly !

And IF there is no trial, IMO, there will be no real justice for Holly !

They need to get this show on the road ... it's been way too long!

:moo:

My opinions only, no facts here:

No disagreement with your fine post; let me expand in a way to support my future posts:

There is an old problem. You are on the “Let’s Make a Deal” game show from the 1970’s and Monte Hall asks you to pick from one of three closed doors. Behind one of the three doors is a big honking prize. There are goats behind the other two doors. You pick Door #1. Then, Monte Hall opens Door #2, and there is a goat behind it, and Monte Hall asks you: “do you want to stick with Door #1 or change your pick to Door #3”? What do you do?

If you believe in JUSTICE, you stick with your original decision of picking Door #1. After all, first-picked suspects are always the most guilty in the public’s eye. In effect, you the juror are assuming that the first-picked door (first suspects) is most relevant because it was picked first. This philosophy is the ‘endowment effect’ or the ‘status quo bias’ OR you are confusing errors of omission with commission. BUT, if you believe in science and not JUSTICE, you must now switch your original pick from Door #1 to Door #3. Why? BECAUSE YOU DOUBLE YOUR ODDS OF WINNING THE BIG PRIZE BY SWITCHING YOUR PICK FROM DOOR #1 TO DOOR #3!!

This question baffled many of the finest mathematical minds in the U.S. when it was first posed. This is a veridical paradox; where you the sleuther must abandon their inborn intuitive logic (opinions) to comprehend it and pick the correct door (science) to better understand the truth that lies behind the correct door.

Here is how it works, scientifically:

1) all odds of a single event must sum to one; for example the odds of a flipped coin coming up heads is ½ and tails is ½. And ½ plus ½ = one.

2) initial odds can never change. Every solvent poker player knows this. The poker players that do not know this are broke.

3) when you originally picked Door #1 from the three available doors, your odds of winning the big prize were 1/3. Initial odds can never change- again remember this.

4) then, Monte Hall shows you Door #2 has a goat behind it. It is not a winning door.

5) now you know that Door #2 has a zero (0/0) chance of a big prize behind it.

6) since your initial pick of Door #1 still maintains a 1/3 chance of hiding the big prize and that the odds of an event must sum to one, the odds that Door #3 is hiding the big prize MUST now be 2/3 (1/3 + 2/3 = 1). So, you double your chances of winning the big prize by switching your choice to Door #3.

Facts are troublesome things.

Motive (1/3), means (1/3), and opportunity (1/3) must also sum to one (1). Please think about this.

Comedy is tragedy.....plus time (Carol Burnett). When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth (Sherlock Holmes).

Sleuth On!