Having addressed the “well cared for” contention in my last post (i.e., kept alive and then cleaned up enough in an attempt to destroy evidence), next let’s look at the “no evidence” position taken by the cops for many decades.
Note the interesting redactions as well.
Amazing all of that information and they cant come up with anything. I pray for you and all of the famlies Cathy. I heard there was supposed to be a film by a company called reset films about the OCCK case, has that been released yet?
Thanks, Jeremy. This documentary is in the works. As is another book and a long form podcast being developed in another country. Much more will be revealed, whether law enforcement gets out ahead of it or chooses to risk the most reputation damaging black eye they deserve and will never recover from.
Oh boy, I’ve got to go back and read that a few times. Where is Verajohn now? Do you know anything about him? That name is familiar to me. What struck me is not only the amount of evidence listed, (even though there was no evidence) but the specific vehicles listed. In reference to the first post, I’ve thought since the 90’s that it is certainly known by some exactly what happened. Reading your 2 posts today, Cathy, I’m still of the same opinion.
Don’t know anything about Verajohn. Many of the people who worked on this case back in the day were never interviewed by subsequent investigators.
On page 5 of this document, near the bottom , is a redaction, that starts with the word “suspect”, then the blank, then “piece of carpet”. I’d sure like to know who they are referring to.
On page 5 of this document, near the bottom , is a redaction, that starts with the word “suspect”, then the blank, then “piece of carpet”. I’d sure like to know who they are referring to.
Also, there are a couple of cars that were processed for hairs etc. Who had the AMC? 75 Nova? Also all those bottles of cleaning chemicals? Yellow one and purple one? Confused. All this stuff was at the crime scene or taken from the King house?
Repeatedly, the sentences start with “brought to the lab by”, and then the officer’s name. Okay, but how do the lab people know where each came from?
According to these documents, law enforcement officers did not find any latent prints. However, Spits refers to a “beautiful” print in the last document. Did anything come of that?!