Some people here have pointed out that Jackie at the Mad Greek can’t possibly know that BK never set foot in the Mad Greek restaurant. That may be true.
But it is possible that Jackie has good reason to say that the anonymous source lied to People magazine. Here are just a few possibilities, I’m sure others can add more:
--The point of sale system at the Mad Greek may enable Jackie to identify every vegan pizza she has ever sold and to link that order to a server, to payment info, and dates and times. The anonymous server may never have taken an order for even one vegan pizza. Or he may have sold hundreds, but maybe all were paid for by credit cards that have nothing whatever to do with BK. Also, if LE pursued this line of inquiry, they would know whether or not Mr. Anonymous worked at the Mad Greek only when BK was in class or when BK’s phone pinged exclusively in Pullman.
--There might have been language in Mr. Anonymous’s account that points to a contradiction with how things work at the Mad Greek. For example, Mr. Anonymous says BK wanted to make sure that his vegan pizza didn’t come in contact with meat products. Maybe it is Mad Greek policy to always warn vegans that there is only one pizza oven and a vegan pizza might be cooked on the very same spot a double-pepperoni finished baking just moments before. My point isn’t that my example is likely (I actually think it is not), but that there may have been something in the anonymous account that Jackie (and perhaps many Mad Greek employees) know can’t be true.
--He may be a former server, but he may not have worked during the relevant time (i.e. he left his employment there before BK arrived in the PNW from PA).
--He may be someone Jackie spoke to after the murders and after the arrest of BK and the answers he gave her then are the opposite from what he is telling People. That alone would make him a liar, albeit we can’t say with certainty to which party he issued the lie.
I find it interesting that Jackie specifically urges us to pay attention to what does and does not get presented in court. She certainly couldn’t bring herself to say directly, “The police, the prosecution, and I all know that there is no evidence whatsoever for what this anonymous dude is saying.”
It’s also intriguing that the anonymous source turned to People magazine and not a more news-intensive outlet. Even the Idaho Statesman would have got everyone’s attention—as it has with their story on Anne Taylor and the possible conflict of interest controversy, which has been republished in other places, starting with YahooNews (already linked here several times).
So why People magazine? The story certainly gets a huge splash because People is everywhere. Jackie speaks of the anonymous source wanting fame, but Mr. Anonymous is unknown. And if he is not telling the truth, what motivates such behavior?
[Long-time Websleuths member who lurks but hasn’t had the time to post in years.]