Did they ever figure out who the 3rd person’s DNA was?
How did that third person’s DNA stay on her body/murder weapons but the accuseds’ DNA did not, even if she was submerged in the river as the prosecution contends?
There’s something fishy about this case.
I’m sorry about your friend but something doesn’t add up.
I agree with you. You’d like to see more - like a “real reason” rather than some “suggestion” that perhaps 2 old fellas were doing something illicit (which was never proved) and “perhaps” saw her taking a picture of them, and then “possibly” thought to kill her, rather than just take her camera’s film - which someone did anyway. I doubt these two guys could even get the film out of a camera. You said it best - something doesn’t add up. It’s interesting (in a not-good way) though, to see how readily folks jump on the bandwagon, wanting to kill the guy. I can’t imagine being part of this young girl’s family and feeling justice was served. It seems they wanted someone to pay, never mind if it was the right someone...