Reply #176: You don't know that [View All]

[TorchTheWitch]

Seligmann was indeed there as there is a photo taken of him at the party. Since we don't know what the REAL timeline is in this case, whatever his alibi is is immaterial. That's been pointed out to you often enough but you just keep ignoring it. Wonder why.

As for Evans having a mustache or not, how do you know he didn't? Did you hang out with him that day or the day before? You've seen a photo of him from that day or the day before that is varified to have been taken at that time? No, you haven't. All you know is that the defense says he never had a mustache. THEY don't even know if he had a mustache or not since THEY didn't see him either. Although I doubt he would have applied a false one to disguise himself, he COULD have, so any claims as to him not having a mustache at any time during the party are immaterial.

In the first ID she was TOLD she shouldn't feel that she had to ID anyone. That's right in the form that she signed that's an exhibit to a defense motion. Did you not read that part?

Now, compare the photo she was shown at that time and another one of Evans that shows how he looks now...




Any reasonable person could look at that lacrosse photo of Evans in his uniform and not be sure it was him at all. Personally, I thought it was an unflattering photo of Seligmann until I read the story attached to it. Since she is only supposed to ID a photo when she is certain it's the right person, and she's not obligated to ID ANY photo is it any wonder that she didn't? I wouldn't have either. I don't think this photo of Evans looks like him at all. The eyes in particular look totally different.