10ofRods
Verified Anthropologist
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2019
- Messages
- 15,560
- Reaction score
- 194,958
But why would BF’s camp be leaking material designed to sound as though BF does have exculpatory testimony to give?
Makes no sense to me. I am still in favor of "Mirror doesn't know what it's talking about/is using rumor" until we learn more.
However, the way I'd answer your question is that the Defense wants to sow the seeds of reasonable doubt. The Defense has every reason to "leak" the document if they want the public to think there were disagreeing accounts about the man seen in the house that night. So I imagine it was the Defense who subpoenaed her and then leaked.
At any rate, there aren't that many possibilities on the table. Either it's fiction or it's true. If true, someone leaked it. It could have traveled along several different paths, I just find it strange that a non-investigative newspaper (Mirror) who doesn't cite a source has this news and no one else does.
Why would anyone leak to the Mirror in the first place? $$$ comes to mind.
At any rate, no one in Nevada or Washington is bound by the gag order, so it's possible that someone in BF's attorney's office leaked it (as has happened in other cases where there was no gag order).
It's the affidavit by PI Bitonti that apparently contains the information. So it has occurred to me that the PI, himself, might have something to gain by getting his name out there. He resides in WA, is not part of the case, and is not bound by the gag order (but how does he know what BF thinks happened?)
That would be one Mr. Bitonti. It was his affidavit that support the exculpatory evidence from BF (how he knew this - who he talked to, etc - would necessarily be people close to BF or to BF herself). I doubt he made it up out of whole cloth, but that's possible. At any rate, I do wonder if Mr Bitonti (who does not live in ID and is not bound by the gag order) could be the one. He may care more about PR for himself and also, may not be legally precluded from sharing with the press. BF may have, at one time, spoken to him (that's the only way I can figure out how he has an affidavit to make about her testimony - but why? why did she speak to him, I wonder? If she didn't - if he got the information through a third party, that's really shaky as a grounds for the subpoena, IMO. So either BF talked to Bitonti or Bitonti talked to a friend or relative of BF who claimed personal knowledge of what she knew/
I have no clue, in the end. IMO. Just guessing.
Last edited: