Jeffrey, a request. Are we definitely positive that it was Suzanne, personally, who dropped the keys? What evidence is there to tell us?
If not: A killer who knew on the protocol how to return the keys anon, like throwing them in a postbox etc., might have gone with Suzanne in the Yale car and returned it later him/herself, especially if a Yalie him/herself (which would be the most likely condition of knowing in the first, anyway). Sure not probable, like you always claim propositions should be. But it rocks some of your assumptions.
I still think it was possible for the victim to walk all the way in 25 minutes - but I would agree to a 60/40 likelihood of a car being used at some time during her journey.
Also, I think too much consideration is given to Suzanne's leaving her wallet at home. People do that very differently. If 'shopping for a small thing' (a chocolate bar, etc.) is on, many simply put a collection of change directly into their trouser's pockets. Some have that anyway, as they don't wish to show without need where their wallet resides. Others want to avoid the temptation of buying more than was planned in the first place, e.g. a packet of cigarettes, more cookies, etc. The check possibility adds up to what I consider a no-knowing situation, as judged from money presence.
Should I repeat how appaled I am about the constant propositions of police bad intentions? Why don't you just team up to accuse the police not only for imperfectness of investigations, but insinuate that an officer from the substation might have developed a secret passion for the victim, or any other reason to commit the crime - thereby constituting a great motive for a collective police cover-up?
The officers surely depend on any success in this case more than most of us do, and they cannot like the situation of your friend, either. It is also not sure that it was their fault in the first place that Jim's name reached the public. I would rather suggest the TV channel he had worked with, or any other press people stuck their nose in too deep, and created a pressure on the officers "you tell or we do - and you can't control what we will be saying, then".
I think you have acted well enough partisan here to gain any possible reason to cease criticising the police - as I have said earlier.
As for your interview of Jeff, I think it not worth anything - after a whole year one should expect your friend, whether or not he committed the crime, to have a consistent story up and running, checked and rechecked. Therefore your interview is simply not conclusive. Of course it is your right to tell everybody you meet that you believe your friend is innocent, and for that purpose you can cite that interview - but it proves nothing. Even if you would assure us Jim, or anybody else you are going to interview, couldn't read this read, you even can't know. It is therefore well conceivable that the actual killer, whoever that may be, perceives of the most likely story for your questions before even you asked him/her.
Regards MNI. |
