That would also make sense. If she did they’d know about at least his confession to her. But I’m not sure if she would have known about the rest of his issues at that point? I’m not sure if the staff is legally obligated to tell an inmate’s wife if he goes off the deep end?
Yes, and the State saves a lot of time, work, and $$$ by offering pleas verses going to trial. I have mixed emotions on the way this is handled at times. Pleas should be fairly based upon the nature of the crime and absolutely non discriminatory across the board regardless of a Defendant's race, religion, social or financial status. (In a perfect world I know
)
Holeman told RA in their last talk before his arrest that they found his bullet where they found the girls remains. Then we had the conspiracy theory lovers claiming no COC and no photographs were taken of the bullet at the crime scene showing it being literally being taken out of the ground. Huh?
I hope we do get to hear what he said he did. I’m curious how similar his statements may be to one another. Eg: did they evolve over time? How much detail did he include? Liars often give vague statements because they’re easier to remember later (imo). What else may have preceded any “confessions”? Eg: a talk with a gaurd? Taunting by his cell guard guy (other inmate)? If he had details only killer would know, what were they? Did he come up with them before or after some meeting with LE or guards or other inmates?
Agree but even if we look at how the defense attacked the unspent bullet evidence- not once have they brought up the timing of its discovery.
Actually, wasn’t the info about the lack of evidence in chain of command from franks one last fall by the D? Big diff between saying conspiracy theorists put it out there vs the fact that RA’s lawyers asserted this. Since I have no link handy, mooooo. Pretty sure it was in Franks One last fall. I’ll find a link when time permits.
There was a motion in limine re:ballistics filed (I believe June 2023) but I haven’t been able to find a PDF of it to read it for myself.
Wouldn't that be some sort of conflict of interest since she is presiding? How would that work? Who would preside over her testimony?
While I get what you're saying, it really is not the same thing! RA's lawyers have actual insight into the case against RA - to me, that ought to give what they say at least a bit more weight than what a content creator or basic citizen who wasn't there and isn't involved in the case has to say about any of it.
This would make me laugh so hard. LMAO. She'd fight that to the end no doubt. Maybe that will be the next big "delay tactic" by the D?
