We were advised that it could be a good idea to put an appeal out for witnesses who saw the murderer arriving and leaving the scene
Some parts of the story make sense and others dont. As Daisy is finding out with Mark's case.
The tricky part in this case is that the part that makes at least one person look guilty is the very part they wont budge on and are adamant they are being truthful which in itself it hard
I dont mind answering its just a bit strange for anyone reading when they dont know the case
Things don't always make sense when there are gaps.. And I'm sure you're aware that situations can be read differently by different people...
Are there any camera's in the vicinity??
As for one person appearing truthful and them not budging... Is it like with a lot of cases, they're just happy someones paying for it...
Is there anyway you can find discrepancies in this truthful persons statement/version of events???
Also it's not always a case that someone is lying... if they believe what they say is true, then they are not telling a lie.. But they may be mistaken in what they believe... (or is it the truthful person could be the guilty party??)
Can you question the truthful person????
Or have you seen the truthful persons statement and gone over it with a fine tooth comb??? maybe a nit comb will let something loose...
When I've looked at the case you know I'm interested in... I've always wished i had all the information spread out on the floor so I could get a jolly good look at it... and compare what i know side by side... I find visulizing the material better... I'd have so many piles....lol
Shame I can't look at what your talking about... I'm sure I could find something....lol
Edit:... think I've slightly misread it jixy....
Things that appear to make a person guilty are to mainly do with circumstance.... (i'm obviously guessing here because I don't know which case you are refering too..)
For instance... today I was talking with my husband about the OJ Simpson case.... and a lot of the circumstantial evidence pointed to him doing it..... But.. and it's a big But... there is a theory that he was protecting his son Jason...
Now that would add sway to a lot of the circumstantial evidence being weighted at OJ... his Bronco ride.. Jason's reaction when OJ comes into the drive and they are obviously having some sort of exchange.. (But rarely do they show that clip).. OJ's hatred of blood... The glove not fitting... I could go on.. but you get the picture....
Just because something makes someone appear guilty doesn't mean they are... It's trying to see what other context the information you know could be perceived...
For instance they may be protecting someone else.... Are they telling the full story???
Sometimes it will depend on the age of the person.. Young people have loyalties and rarely would tell any authority figure anything...
They also might have been doing something else illegal and didn't want to say at the time...
Also peoples language gets misinterpreted... Accents , slang... what one person means by a word someone else interprets it in a completley different context...
I'll give you an example.... when I was a young girl.. 16 .. saying that I'd been with him, meant that you'd had a dance and he'd given you a kiss at the end of the night...
Now someone who was a lot older than me thought I meant I had slept with this person... I was horrified...lol
But.. I hope you get my drift... sometimes it's language and what people really mean....
Maybe my drivel is of know use.. but as I'm unsure of the context I can only hazzard a guess
EDIT.... Another example I remembered of people's interpretation of words is:... I worked with someone who was discribing a disagreement... She said that they were 'kicking off'... And I had seen the same thing...
Kicking off to me meant.. Having a major screamer and threatening behaviour... But to her it was just an argument that meant kicking off.. .. So if we both described this incident to someone ,it could have been interpreted in 2 different ways.. Neither of us would be lying...