Jackie, I am not saying anything against what you posted, I am just pointing out how if you look at what everybody has testified too and you put it in a logical sequence things get crowded at the crime scene all over a short time span. Trump says he saw Ryan and Chuckie, Shauna says she saw two kids who weren"t Ryan or chuckie and than there was two other kids that you"re talking about now. That actually makes six kids that went through the scene. But the dogs didn"t follow Ryan and Chuckie to the river, where Chuckie said they went after the murder. The dogs didn"t follow the two kids Shauna saw. So those two and Ryan and Chuckie had no blood from the scene on them for the dogs to follow but the two that went down the alley and to the dorm seem to be the only ones that got close enough to the crime scene to pick up a blood scent. Those seemly innocent kids turn out to be higher on the suspect list than everybody else in this case.

Richard I am not saying there were 4 boys there, never have. I am saying that the two boys Shauna saw (and I do not include Trump, all he did on the 911 call was relay information and he could not describe the boys) ran down the alley. Shauna did not say they were covered in blood. I have no idea if it was one murderer or more. I believe because of the behavior of the boys and lack of blood that they stumbled across Kent"s body and ran because they were scared, which does not make them murderers. They were also not Chuck and Ryan, Chuck and Ryan were not there. I did not say Shauna (and Trump as you say) saw 4 boys. You must be misinterpreting my post.

Jackie, if Shauna, and therefore Trump, saw the two boys your referring too,who you say were not the killers, than, Shauan and Trump saw four boys by the body. As they were both on the newspaper loading dock seeing the same things than by your calculations four people went through the crime scene in less than 6 minutes. At 2:15 am I would call that a traffic jam. And if they weren"t the killers than Trump and Shauan would have stated that these boys came after they had seen Chuckie and Ryan but nobody has testified that it happened that way.

Richard, from what I understand the two boys who were seen near the victim"s car and described by Shauna did not have blood on them, which the murderers certainly would. It"s possible they could have stepped in blood and the dog followed that scent, but can you explain why the dog would have been started in the alley where the boys were seen running and not at the location where the crime was committed? Following the trail of the boys would only serve to find the boys, not necessarily the murderer(s). And of course we all know that Chuck"s story took them in a totally different direction than the dogs followed, and his story changed later with prompting to follow the trail a bit more but not completely. Not that his story was based in reality.

Jackie the dogs followed the scent of the murder victims blood that"s why the dogs went to the dorm because that"s where the killers went. The dogs didn"t react to to the killers scent. The blood of the victim was the strongest scent at the scene and in the immediate area and that scent was carried off by the killers in the form of the victims blood being on them. As there had been so many people in that parking lot before and after the murder the only scent the dogs could really pick-up and follow would have been the victims blood scent and they followed that to the dorm. Otherwise the dogs would have been confused by the large number of different scents at the scene. The victims blood is the only thing that travelled from the scene and that was accomplished by the killers having that blood on them.

Actually seb, the two guys running down the alley very well may not be the killers. Bill certainly believes they were passersby who stumbled across Kent"s body, and I would not be surprised if these two fled because they were drunk, likely underage, and scared they would be dragged into it or get in trouble for drinking or being under the influence of something. Big mistake on the part of the cops, they started the police dog in the alley so they were following the scent of the two guys which led them to a university dorm (where most residents are under 21). If they had started the dog at the murder scene it would have been far more credible that they were following the trail of the murderer. But the theory that the killer was parked in the area seems perfectly valid to me. I can"t help but feel something is about to blow this case apart.

My thought"s:
There was a police officer patrolling the area that night, writing out parking fines.
The killers were seen running down an alley and they split up.
If I am correct, the police dogs should still be able to pick up the killers scent, using evidence/ the victims clothing. Therefore the dog should be able to identify the killers, which I beleive isn"t Ryan.
Also it is obvious the killers knew they"re victim, as they did not steal money or the victims wallet, they took a watch which i think one of them had they"re eye on. they knew where he worked and that he worked til late. They would have driven there and parked a few blocks away, as running in the dark is probably one of the best ways to get away without being identified. Could the cop have issued a ticket to one of the killers? Could the parking ticket isuued identify a person that knows the victim?
I hope this helps....Disgusting interrogation & investigation by the police,

I thank God Marty Tankleff is free! This is about the third or fourth time I have ever watched 48 Hours Mystery. I was realizing it has been two years next week I think since Ryan"s story was on? That being one of the two or three other times I have ever watched 48 Hours. I am so grateful that they are investigating how the case unfolded. I am so thankful CBS covered it tonight. Not only do family and friends need to be vigilant but also the public at large. It is an awful atrosity when an innocent person goes to prison and we are all the laughing stock when the real culprit goes free. May God grant freedom and justice for all innocent prisoners in our "land of the FREE". Ryan, we won"t quit, we are with you!!!

Bill, as an ex-cop I tell you that when ever a case gets manipulated in order to get a quick arrest or a conviction the police usually wind-up looking incompetent. That"s when higher-ups, DAs and judges, Trial and Appeal judges should realize that the cops have screwed-up and they the higher-ups should not join in to continue that incompetent work.

From the Columbia Tribune News Blog today

If I have a "mantra" about this case it is simply this: To believe Chuck"s story, one would have to believe that the police department in Columbia is terribly incompetent and at best showed horrible judgement and observation skills on that night.

It isn"t even a situation where one or two things were ignored or missed, but an entire slew of things that were going on in the area would have had to be missed by the police. Just a short list (and you could go on and on):