The State/LE mischaracterized the Turco report.....and covered up even knowing who he is! That was one of the most preposterous lies they have told because, really, how hard was it to find the identity of a Purdue professor with that specific expertise? Not hard.
What I am getting at here, is who is that all being written for? The basis of a franks was already denied and we are racing towards trial. Whether or not Holeman's summary or the defence's summary of the report is the better, is entirely irrelevant to what the report says and what the witness will say at trial. So why are they spending their time on this?
I'm not sure what you mean about the finding of the judge in the safe keeping hearing. I wasn't aware this judge even believed in hearings.
Right but that is not true. The judge granted a substantial hearing over the accused's conditions. You may disagree with the Judge's factual findings, but it is the case that she made adverse factual findings at that hearing and recorded that the defence had misrepresented the evidence.
Then on March 18th she held a dismissal hearing. So she does hold hearings. Just not the Franks one. I think in the fullness of time, we will learn that the defence did not establish any evidential basis for one in their 'unusual' franks motion.