This news story has me confused. It describes the arrest of a murder suspect 54 years after the crime due to the discovery of an unused train ticket - in other words, his alibi, that he was out of town, on the train, at the time of the murder, is said to be undone by the discovery of the ticket.
Wait a minute. How is this supposed to work? That the unused ticket proves he was in town at the time and not on the train? But hold on - when he was first investigated as a suspect over half a century ago, and gave the ‘I was on the train at the time’ alibi, surely there was some corroborative evidence that he was out of town? He must have been seen on the train, no? Or, maybe there was some other proof; maybe a receipt with a time stamp issued hundreds of miles away? Obviously they didn’t just take his word for it, or did they? How does the unused ticket counter that corroborating evidence? Again, I assume there must have been such evidence. How could there not have been (unless they simply took his word for it)?
Part of my trouble with this is that the guy now charged with murder was a very, very strong suspect. According to the linked article, “He matched the description of the suspect, he wore the same clothing, he had the same first name “Johnny” and he lived about a block away” (from the victim).
What am I missing?