1) About the video camera, I suspect it was stolen when the DA ransacked CJ's friend's apartment & the original tape was destroyed.
Also, the footage wouldn't have mattered anyway. So what if CJ had proof he made some purchases after the crime? It wouldn't be proof he didn't buy those things BEFORE the crime.
2) Not necessarily. Back in the 80s, there were camcorders that could play the recorded footage back to your TV, allowing you to record it on a VHS. Computers weren't mainstream in the 1980s, so things had to be done through a TV. Modern-day camcorders can work similarly, using a DVD recorder in absence of a computer.
3) I suppose it was for time purposes. A funeral for CJ's friend would've taken time & would've diverged from the main plot. CJ might've been in shock when he found out his friend died and didn't have much of an emotional reaction because the news didn't sink in yet. Besides, CJ really murdered that woman - if he was cold-blooded enough to stab a woman to death, it woudn't be beyond him to have no emotional reaction when his colleague died.
4) CJ definitely killed that woman. He wasn't wearing the shoes he bought after the crime was committed, obviously. He had to have another pair of Montalvo sneakers that he ditched after the crime. He probably ditched the clothes he wore while committing the crime too. After all, the DA only presented the evidence-stained pants last-minute (read: after he planted the blood stains on the pants). If they'd been the original pair of pants from the crime scene, they would've been submitted as DNA evidence from the get go.
reply
share