if Jim is going to be exonerated, he has to be affirmatively excluded as a suspect; and/or another person, the true perpetrator must be found.
I thought Jim was already innocent, at least until proven guilty. Now, that may not be what actually happened in this case, but I don't believe he would be better served by keeping this in the press, etc.
I agree with James, and have stated it here at least twice. This case will be solved when someone involved talks or blabs about the murder. If the police were going to solve the murder, they would have done so. If this case is to be solved, the police will have to be provided some pretty good new evidence.
Everyone here has done a wonderful job of reciting the known facts, considering various theories, and speculating on possible motives, etc. We aren't going to solve this murder no matter how well-intended we are. This is not Sherlock Holmes with an answer in front of us only to be uncovered.
Whether we, as rational animals, like it or not, some things remain a mystery until revealed.
In best regards,
Harry |
