I see this said all over this sub ever since the PCA was released. "The prosecution doesn't want to show their hand and give all their evidence away in the PCA, they only gave enough to arrest him." Lets discuss this.

First, let’s talk about discovery. The prosecution has to show the defense all the evidence theyre going to use at trial before the trial. I know in movies you'll see someone come out at the last minute with evidence to save the day. This is not the movies. They can't hide anything from RAs defense attorneys. They will know exactly everything the prosecution is going to use and say to show RAs guilt.

Of course that doesn't mean all of their evidence is in the PCA. Surely they could have left a lot of evidence out. Witnesses, dna, even a video of RA committing the crime can be left out. After all, the purpose of the PCA is to show a judge that LE has probable cause that RA committed the crimes hes charged with. So yes, not all of the evidence will be in there......

......but they need to show enough. Enough for probable cause. Nothing in the PCA is a smoking gun. In fact, my opinion is that the PCA is actually pretty weak. You have three witnesses that saw him on or near the trail. Two of the three described his clothes correctly, one said he was wearing all black. None got a real look at his face. None of them will be able to identify RA as BG. Then, you have three witnesses who supposedly seen his car parked at the CPS building. None of them described the same car and none of them described RAs car. In fact, the purple PT cruiser witness, a purple PT cruiser is so distinguishable.... why was this even included in the PCA? Are they trying to serve up reasonable doubt on a plate to the defense? Then, the only piece of physical evidence in the PCA is the bullet that they matched to RA from the extraction marks. Well.. let me tell you.. this is not good evidence. I'm actually shocked the judge (who almost immediately recused himself, bare in mind) signed off on it. Ejection marks are NOT ballistics and having been manually cycled instead of fired, there will have been much less forces to make impressions. It even says right in the PCA that the "matching tool marks" is subjective in nature. If they had dna or fingerprints off of that bullet, they certainly would have used that to link RA to the bullet.

Which brings it around..... if they had DNA, they would have said so in the PCA. LE would not use witness statements that dont match and subjective ejector mark evidence if they had DNA. Having matching DNA would likely not only secure an arrest but a conviction. Sure, maybe LE has DNA and risked the PCA not being signed off on using shaky circumstantial evidence as part of a strategy to let RA talk and hopefully get more evidence from his statements. But you wouldnt need to do that if you have strong evidence (dna)!!! The amount of mistakes made in this case lead me to believe that if they had a smoking gun (dna) they would have said so as to secure the arrest. It is also possible they got DNA after the PCA was filed.

So what do y'all think?