Great thread topic. It'll be fun trying to put the pieces together.

Am I the only one who can't access the whole 'Conspiracy Wall' in the official 'Conspiracy Wall' page?
All I can see is the newest part, Rachel's picture & drawings.

3.) Key issue: the drawings:
They don't really look like drawings from a 9 year old...
The more one looks at them: could it be that there are pictures UNDERNEATH the dark black bold lines? meaning: someone (Ames?) scribbled over her initial drawings, to conceal the possible identity clues to the murderer? Possibly also to protect her?

And just to vent, can someone over at NBC please get off their lazy a$$ and do the ENTIRE conspiracy wall in flash instead of one little piece at a time? Come on this is just lame. Just put up what is visible on the show at least. With the 4000 commercials you show every episode I know you have the money.

You all have interesting theories, but revealing the Conspiracy Wall would shorten Life's premiere season to 5-6 weeks max. Over. Done. This is not a mini-series like Band Of Brothers. This is a complicated story and is meant to go on and on.

I also believe we've not yet been introduced to the many more players in the story Charlie is piecing together on the Wall. Be patient. Let the story and characters be fleshed out.

a few tidbits:

3.) studying the picture of the murdered Tom Seybolt on the conspiracy wall: http://www.nbc.com/Life/exclusives/conspiracy/index.shtml , I seem to notice that his right hand palm is open, but he has something, like a sheet of paper, clutched in his left hand. A clue to his murder? like a contract/confession/statement he didn't sign, or crumbled up after he signed it?

Also, does anyone else think it's strange that he is dressed in work attire, even down to his watch, but doesn't have any socks on????

of the two photographs of the crime scene posted on the conspiracy wall, one is of the dead father and the other of the daughter's "unmade" bed. Look at the bloody footprints by the fathers body...that killing was downstairs. The killer then went upstairs and slayed the mother who was trying to protect the children. Then the killer went into the son's room and sliced him up...

but, wheres the blood in the daughter's room? There isn't a spot in the daughter's room? Did the killer take time to take off his boots? Probably not...so there must have been more than one killer...with the other being careful to step around any blood clearly marked on the white carpet.

Lastly, given that both parents were downstairs...it would seem like the "killer(s)" were known by the victims...prob would be good to see when they flash the picture of the mother and son victims and see if there are bloody footprints around those bodies as well...

we'll see what happens tonight:) great show!

Some thoughts after looking at the stills of the drawings again.

1) Red eyes - Other folks have posted the eyes looked bloodshot. But the murders seem to have taken place at night if Rachel was at a sleepover and all. What if the red eyes aren't symbolic, but depictions of infrared - night vision?
2) The drawings seem to indicate more than one killer - frankly, one would think it would take more than one killer to keep someone from getting away to the neighbors out a door or window. Rick James, as I have taken to calling him, had black pants - like elaborately drawn black pants. The other pictures lack those black pants. They also suggest, well, ski masks.

Also, can anyone tell me if Rachel had a cleft chin? I can't find a good enough screen capture to tell if the bear covers her chin up completely or not.

1.) Question about the timeline on the conspiracy wall:
http://www.nbc.com/Life/exclusives/conspiracy/index.shtml
Under two of the newspaper articles it gives "February 4, 1994" as the date , in handwriting - while the written articles referenced above those dates are actually from 2/18/94 and 4/2/94... ( note the reversal of 2/4 and 4/2..).
Who is making up this board? are we supposed to notice this? Does it mean anything? Or is it just a real dumb mistake ( by the story board designers who are making up this board?)
also:
on the paper tag to go with the big kitchen knife, it gives 2/18/94 as the date - but the crime happened a week before. Is not all evidence tagged on the day of the crime? and Who is F. Clark, listed on the same line as Ames? (Yes, real interesting that now there is also a Jason Clark ..)
2.) The "18 Mill missing" - new article on conspiracy wall:
The obvious thought it that one (or more?) of the bank robbers was in cahoots with the LAPD...or LAPD knew this was going down - so they were right there! How convenient for any of the LAPD officers at the scene to pick up the $$$..while all the bank robbers got killed, execution style.
Strange that they were classified as "real pros" by the watchman, yet couldn't get a single bullet into any of the officers?
Or maybe one officer was shot ( and killed).. and got "traded out" for one of the bank robbers, in all hat confusion...so lots of people are participating in that cover up >> lotsa $$$ to go around to keep everyone quiet - and happy.. Was Dani's dad there?

3.) Show me the money:
How can 18 Mill come out of a safe ( one assumes..) AND disappear that fast, barely after the watchman hit the panic button...
Is it a really fact that the money left the bank?? Or was it still there all along and someone made it disappear later? "Most everyone quit" after that incident.. how convenient. No money was ever traced?? Hard to believe that someone, or quite a few people - is/are sitting on a big pile of $$$ and not spending ANY of it.. How come? Must mean that inside bank people were in on it too, and knew how to make those 18 Mill "disappear" from any records..
There goes a possible connection to Seybolt.... was he somehow in it?

4. Finally:
In Stark's deposition from 2/26/94 he states that he had been with the LAPD for "three years" - thus brand new on the force when the bank robbery took place ( 4/3/91). But not partnered with Crews at that time. Who with?

also did anyone notice that the staff reporter was the same on all the newspaper clips?

The murderers never saw Rachel so where was she hiding? Did she run to a neighbors house after the murders? If Ames is a pawn then did he find Rachel and hide her from those who would stand to remain secure if she died?

Just something that I have found interesting and odd about the wall.....both the opening statement article and the arrest article have the date of February 4, 1994 written underneath it on the wall for some reason; the date of the arrest is february 18th with the article saying that the slayings were a week before and the evidence tag for the knife is dated 2/17/94 and 2/18/94 and i'm not sure if one date is the day of the killings and the other is the day the evidence was logged in....i can't read the box categories but even so i'm not sure what the february 4th date means if the attacks were on the 17th and why if the opening statements were on april 4th, why is the date under the article february 4th and then why is the date under the arrest article also february 4th if the article is dated february 18th as well and then if the killings were february 4th why did it take almost 2 weeks to log the knife into evidence? Then if you go to Starks Deposition, which was done on the 26th, he mentions that a lot of people get crazy around valentine's day, so the murders were around valentines day so where does the february 4th date come in? Also the person who cut Charlie before the murders was Jason Clark - an F. Clark logs in the murder weapon and a T. Clark was at the bank robbery - and during the deposition, Stark is asked about Charlie's spending habits and if he spends outside his means as a rookie cop....all this is very interesting when looked at together.....

What happened on February 4, 1994???? that Charlie wrote that date down under the articles about his arrest and the opening statement of his trial if the murders were on February 17th and the opening statement on April 4?

I was thinking along those same lines: post 80, from 10/26, on page 4...
this needs more exploring, definitely...

In the drawing made by Rachel, the killer doesn't have on socks and has dark hair.

Charlie Crews served twelve years of a life sentence for a triple homicide he did not commit. During that time, Charlie lost everything he had - his wife, his friends, and his fellow cops.

Charlie Crews was a cop in prison. It would have been easier if they had sentenced him to death. Everyone wanted a piece of him, guards as well as inmates. Charlie was in the prison hospital more than he was out. In order to ensure his safety, it was decided that Charlie would serve the remainder of his sentence, the remainder of his life, in twenty-three hour a day lockdown. Twenty-three hours a day in a six by eight foot cell. Charlie lost his mind. He talked to the walls, to himself, to his wife who couldn't hear him. And always, he heard the voice in his head saying, "I didn't do it."

After two years in that locked box, though, guilt began to creep into Charlie. He began to wonder, "Did I do it?" If he was in this box being punished, he must have done something. Then during his one hour a day all alone in the isolated prison yard, he discovered a book lying on the ground - The Way of Zen. When he finally decided to pick it up, Charlie read the whole book in one sitting. He read it again the next day. Sometimes he read only one page a day, sometimes only one word. That book gave him himself back. He was here, in this cell. That was all he had but it was all he had. This was his life. It was then that Charlie requested a spot back in general population. If this was his life, he would live it in the presence of other human beings.

When Constance Griffiths came to see Charlie with the proposition of re-opening his case, of giving Charlie hope, Charlie told her there was no outside world to which he could return. There was only this place, and he was here, now. Please leave him alone. But Constance wouldn't do that. And finally Charlie consented to let her help him.

The first tests were negative for Charlie's DNA. The path to exoneration looked clear. Along with his Exoneration Plea, Constance had filed suit against the Los Angeles Police Department and the City of Los Angeles. They were both more than happy to pay cash in order to get the exoneration put behind them. But Charlie wanted more than cash; Charlie wanted his badge and gun back. He would have been a detective by now, so Constance got that for him as well.

Freedom nearly blinded Charlie Crews. It was as if he had to learn everything again. Constance helped him shop for a house, and he bought the first one he saw, big and new and empty. He also bought a car, a Bentley. He went to the doctor, the dentist, the beach, and, like a crutch he needed in order to walk, Constance was always by his side.

After the first month of freedom, Charlie found Ted Earley, whom he had taken under his wing in prison, alone and broke in a cheap motel. Charlie took Ted home with him and gave him a room above his garage. Although Ted can no longer handle money in publicly held companies, he can handle Charlie's settlement money, which he does. Maybe it's not a good idea to let a convicted felon handle your settlement money. But maybe it's not such a good idea to get attached to that money in the first place.

When Charlie returns to the force, he brings his prison knowledge with him. He now knows the law from both sides, as cop and con. He also understands that his version of Zen applies to being a cop. Charlie believes everything is connected - victims, bystanders, witnesses, even his new partner, Dani Reese, who has a wall at which Charlie insists on picking away, not only out of curiosity, but also because it's fun. Regardless, she is his partner, and Charlie will back her up one hundred percent.

But the badge and the newfound wealth can't change what Charlie has been through. His world is a different one than the rest of us see, because his world lacks social pretense. And although there is darkness in Charlie's story, darkness in Charlie's job, Charlie will never stop trying to find the light.

I think that Lt. Davis is hiding something. Check out the conspiracy wall and the picture that the little girl drew. It has a mustach and so does Crews old partner Bobby Stark...

it also looks like the guy has longer hair, just looking at the bank shotout report and in the det.list
there is a det.with the first inital of K like the LT. and a women would change her last to that of her husband , maybe that is her,and is it me or does little rachel look like his new partner, age is close.