hello there!
i guess the reason i believe CA is lying boils down to common sense. i know (and the jury knows) there were depositions taken beforehand. it is pretty clear that the prosecution was confident in their computer forensics, and in their CIC there were no definitive questions from the SA or the DT about anyone other than ICA possibly making those searches. To me, the professionalism and organization (for lack of a better term) the SA's have has been evident. They have covered ALL bases, all questions, all doubt...until now. The fact that this was clearly a surprise to them makes me think that regardless of what CA or JB says, this is a new revelation.
Plus...how do you get from dogs eating bamboo to chlorophyll to chloroform in a google search? It just doesn't make sense. She just seemed like she was lying (too much unnecessary detail, things not adding up, etc). Also, she's the defendant's mother. She's obviously in a precarious position, but doesn't want her daughter to get the DP, and those internet searches are the one thing linking her to premeditation. Any juror that wouldn't factor this concept into their deliberation is a fool, IMO.
