I just want to throw out a couple thoughts about RA talking about having been there when he was. I believe he talked to the Conservation Officer because they had said they wanted to speak to anybody who had been there that afternoon, and he was afraid someone would mention seeing him there. I'm guessing that he did it before it was known that they had the video and audio, and that he would have been much less likely to volunteer the information if he had realized that she had recorded him.
What I've been wondering is if the person who took his statement may have just told them that he(?) had talked to him and he hadn't seen anything, so they had his statement filed with others who had nothing to offer. However it happened, I hope it doesn't affect the outcome of the case if he is the right person. I know I could never be on the jury if/when he goes to trial, though, because I'm not sure there's anything they could say or show that would convince me that he wasn't involved and almost certainly the actual murderer. MOO
Imo the way RA’s attys described RA’s 2017 talk with the CO in their press release makes it sound impromptu - a meeting that took place “outside the local grocery store.”
Have to doubt RA went to the local grocery store w the specific purpose of meeting an officer outside to file his witness report! And this location certainly is not where any professional LEO would choose to conduct a witness interview.
JMO so I assume RA & the CO were both at the local grocery store for the normal reason, to shop, and that their conversation started off socially because they knew each other. <snipped for focus>
Anyway my actual reply point was…. if indeed this CO & RA were friendly enough to stop & talk at the grocery store, it’s easy to see how RA’s tip might have wound up in the “trusted / unverified” category. The crazy part is that it managed to stay there for almost six years!!
<snipped for focus>
Was the “very helpful” pharm tech RA, whose CVS was just two blocks / 1000 feet / .2 miles / .3 km from the Carroll Co sheriff’s office, so friendly with all these guys that he somehow managed to charm them out of taking that report seriously??
I agree with the timing thoughts about RA submitting his 2017 Narrative Statement earlier rather than later.
IMO, the state Conservation Officer (CO) took a concise and thorough report in the context of a Missing Persons investigation/active search
and properly submitted it.
As far as we know from reporting, a subsequent “clerical error” resulted in the 2017 RA Narrative being “misfiled” and not included in the case information available to principal investigators.
Per the PC Affadavit, the state CO took RA’s phone ID information and provided RA’s name. I believe state CO also recorded RA contact information (phone number, driver’s license number, address), though that’s JMO since it’s not explicit in the PC Affadavit.
Additional information that I would have liked to see recorded by the state CO is affirmation by RA that RA took the same path back from the Monon High Bridge to his parked vehicle. However, I can understand that the state CO would make the assumption that would be the case, and, since RA did not report seeing anyone else on the return trip, that’s not recorded.
: Clearly there was a breakdown with the 2017 RA Narrative being “lost” until recently.
However, I don’t see any indication at this time that RA exercised social influence to bury or de-prioritize the 2017 RA Narrative.