The stipulation filed in court says BF agreed to an "interview" with defense counsel, not a deposition. This is a significant de-escalation that suggests to me BF's evidence may not be very helpful to BK. From this development, and considering the way investigator Richard Bitonti phrased his affidavit in support of the Nevada subpoena, I am inclined to speculate that Bitonti read the police reports and thought BF might have useful information. However, she was not cooperative. The clearly defective subpoena may have achieved its only purpose after all; an interview with BF in a place and setting where she can feel comfortable.How will the interview between BF and BK's attorney work? I assume this is a deposition and that BF will have her attorney present who may advise her at times not to answer a question, if appropriate to do so.
What does Anne Taylor gain or lose by going to Nevada to interview BF versus insisting that BF appear at the preliminary hearing? Definitely looks more victim-friendly to drop the subpoena requiring BF to show up at the PH, so this is a goodwill gain for the defense. On the other hand, at a PH it seems that BK's defense team would be able to question BF without BF's attorney playing a role. IANAL, so wonder what others think.
The stipulation makes no mention of a prosecutor being in attendance. If that's the case it suggests to me they know what BF will say and aren't worried about it.
Finally, I believe the Mirror article quotes the defense investigator's affidavit for something it does not say, and conflates DM's experience with BF's:
"According to the affidavit, she allegedly witnessed a naked man run through a rear sliding door. She lived on the first-floor of the home and came face-to-face with the alleged killer."
All MOO.