[Diddle E. Squat]

Wow, that was an interesting disrupter incident.

Anyway, so really, what's the big deal about the pinky ring? If confirmed, all it does is further show that he had an affair with her(which the watchbox already does). It still doesn't add any proof that he murdered her. Some might say that maybe he took it off her body after murdering her, but what would be the motive for that? She would be identified sooner or later anyway, and wouldn't implicate him.

Interesting observation, but even if true how does it get us any closer to linking him to the murder?

[Registered]

Wow, that was an interesting disrupter incident.

That usually happens when the libs think we're on to something. At least that's been my experience.

[Registered]

Well, let's see the relevancy of this ring could be that if the ring was found WITH the body, and it is shown that at the date of this photo (7-8/01) that Condit actually had it...oooo, now that would be a BAD thing wouldn't it?

[MozarkDawg]

Interesting observation, but even if true how does it get us any closer to linking him to the murder?

Circumstantial evidence. Ring she always wore is missing when her remains are found. If Condit was in possession AFTER HER DEMISE, he would have some serious explaining to do. A prosecutor would begin to lay out a case with the circumstantial evidence, one of the blocks leading to his guilt used would be that he had her ring. His excuse, "She gave it to me," would then be challenged with, "Well, if that's the case, why do you no longer wear it? Why did you stop wearing it in the first place? When did she give it to you? WHERE IS IT NOW?"

(That's IF he was wearing her ring).