So how would we know who is being truthful here? MS is accused of omitting and reading things out of context... CW says someone used a password to "steal" information. Neither side seems to have provided actual hard evidence to the masses... how do we know which side is fully forthcoming?
They all lack credibility imo. He said / she said. I already asked in my last post - how do we know which of them is being fully honest? We do not. Because no one seems to want to put it all out in public for us to decide for ourselves. Instead, we're expected to take someone else's word for it. No thanks.
MS interviewed the guy who owned the account. I listened to it today. He spoke of his reasons why he came forward and said he gave them the password and permission to view the messages. So unless he's lying (not sure why he would??), MS didn't get the info from anyone that stole the information.
A tip: the girls of that account made a post a few weeks ago complaing "The blabla “X” account was deleted entirely. They explain they do not have access to any of their accounts, including the YouTube channel. They explain it was the guy that locked them out..
Uh Oh, he ll hath no fury like a woman locked out of her SM account.
Well, about that, Scrantin and Lebrato had apparently planned to file their own version of a Franks Motion - so they too must have seen some issue with the way in which the LE obtained their search warrant. As I recall, JG was willing to hear them on that issue, but not willing to hear B&R on the same issue for some reason. I'd have liked to have have seen what they'd have put out to be honest. EXCLUSIVE: Richard Allen's former defense attorney doubts he'll get a fair trial
That's why it was. so important that these messages were leaked publicly. This will put the brakes on any kind of green light for these kinds of shenanigans, hopefully.
Honestly? We still have nothing more than he said / she said. Its a sideshow. A distraction. The very thing most of us say we want to avoid in this (and most other if not all other) case(s). If there is something illegal that went on, someone should deal with it. I've asked upthread who that would be - what powers that be could deal with it? The police? Judge Gull? Ethics committee? Who would deal with it and how would a party get them involved? So far, nothing seems to really have come of it in terms of consequences for the parties nor for RA's actual case. If something is going to come of it, when would we expect this to happen by?
Having been in backrooms of several court rooms with counsel and opposing counsel for various matters at various levels of court... I can assure you, they all make pretty similar remarks about eachother and the judge, and even families / accused etc from time to time. Often times, they even laugh about it. Oh the stories I could tell! LOL. So do we expect some sort of consequences then for the leaker or the involved chat participants or both?Can anyone imagine if the State had a group of SM cranks that engaged with a Due Process Gang type of 'lawyers' with this kind of disturbing, highly inflammatory information?
It would break the Internet and the public would be calling for their heads. It's amazing how it's only a one way street it seems.
Just sayin'.
MOO
I hope so. Honestly attorneys should not trust "content creators" to help with with their case. What do these content creators know about the case that the defense doesn't know? Nothing. The defense has access to the evidence. I hope it is a lesson and the attorneys stay away from youtube and "contents creators" but I doubt it. They should learn with Brian Kohberger's attorney. High profile case with many people sending love letters to her client, many conspiracies and she still doesn't engage with internet sleuths as far as I know. A breath of fresh air watching an attorney in a high profile case with ethics and only interested in defend her client in COURT and not interested in turning the trial into a circus. I hope she continues that way.
My point being the messages are legit and you can still see it as he said/she said, but that doesn't change the fact the messages happened and a participant in those messages is who shared the access with MS AND he has talked about it. I think someone participating in the discussions would know the context. He spoke about it. So for CW to say it was hacked or stolen or whatever else is just not true and when the person that gave access says they did, I believe them.
Shrug. SO be it then. Sleep with dogs, get fleas? Drama, drama, drama.
I would feel the exact same way if it was the prosecution.
