|
Post by smpyrtle on Sept 2, 2009 15:55:44 GMT -5
It's really hard to believe the bloody hand print was not thought to be that important. I guess once they thought that Charlie was the guilty party they didn't see any need to investigate anything else. As we mentioned in an earlier post this was a small rural area that didn't have the know how to investigate. But it sure would have answered so many questions that are still being asked, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Angela on Sept 2, 2009 16:55:28 GMT -5
You got that right Susan. At the very least it could have been determined by the size of the hand print if it was that of a child's or an adult's.
|
|