When you hear a "word salad" coming from a politician's mouth, you know that [A] the person doesn't know what they are talking about, or [B] they are trying to pull the wool over your eyes and dealing in obfuscation. This was the case when the Riverside Police Homicide Cold Case Unit issued an ambiguous statement a few years ago, that effectively amounted to nothing..We still don't know whether the individual mentioned in the statement below even exists.
The person claimed to have been identified in 2020 has somehow been ruled out by Riverside police, who stated that "the person was not involved in the murder of Cheri Jo Bates". If this individual has been ruled out of murdering Cheri Jo Bates, then the only way they can achieve this is knowing exactly where this person was during the murder (which is extremely unlikely), he was physically handicapped in some way in 1966 to make the crime impossible (which would be evident by records), or they have ruled him out by mitochondrial DNA to four of the hairs recovered from the base of Cheri Jo Bates' right thumb, which have been unused and currently remain in evidence. It is reasonable to conclude that a DNA and/or color comparison to these remaining hairs is the only certain way to exclude him from the murder (which I doubt was done). However, if it was done, why would they accept these results, when they wouldn't accept the results of the DNA comparison to their prime suspect in 1999 (which seemingly ruled him out)..
Because of the "statute of limitations" in the USA, any prosecution of this individual for interfering with an investigation in 1967 would fail. But that wouldn't apply in 2016 if it was found that he didn't author the three Bates letters. An open investigation of an unsolved murder being interfered with by somebody claiming to have authored three malicious communications, when they didn't author them, could be argued, is a criminal offence subject to prosecution. Any reasonable investigation into this individual that concluded he wasn't involved in the murder of Cheri Jo Bates, should have been achieved through proper evidence lines.
From the "word salad" presented by the Riverside Police Homicide Cold Case Unit, without any meaningful explanation to their findings, one can only conclude that the above statement is not the truth. This individual identified claimed to have written the three Bates letters but failed to admit he typed the Confession letter and authored the Riverside Desktop Poem. And if he didn't claim all three, then he likely didn't author any. An individual claiming to be "remorseful for their actions" in 1967 by sending another anonymous letter in 2016 and further muddying the waters, should be viewed as less than honest.
Because of the "statute of limitations" in the USA, any prosecution of this individual for interfering with an investigation in 1967 would fail. But that wouldn't apply in 2016 if it was found that he didn't author the three Bates letters. An open investigation of an unsolved murder being interfered with by somebody claiming to have authored three malicious communications, when they didn't author them, could be argued, is a criminal offence subject to prosecution. Any reasonable investigation into this individual that concluded he wasn't involved in the murder of Cheri Jo Bates, should have been achieved through proper evidence lines.
From the "word salad" presented by the Riverside Police Homicide Cold Case Unit, without any meaningful explanation to their findings, one can only conclude that the above statement is not the truth. This individual identified claimed to have written the three Bates letters but failed to admit he typed the Confession letter and authored the Riverside Desktop Poem. And if he didn't claim all three, then he likely didn't author any. An individual claiming to be "remorseful for their actions" in 1967 by sending another anonymous letter in 2016 and further muddying the waters, should be viewed as less than honest.
