Macd, Sorry for posting from the iphone earlier. I was out playing and basically screwed up my commas.
What I was saying to you and SleuthinNC was this:
It doesn't matter what the rules say.
You are asking a JURY to look at a new piece of evidence in a case where the defense offered NO theory at all. They simply set about disproving the pros theory.
Bad, bad timing all around. Here's why:
Opening statement:
Ducks, money,necklace,wrong color dress,domestic violence, spoofed phone call, he dunnit.
Closing Statement:
Oops on the ducks, oops on the necklace, oops on the wrong color dress, oops on the spoofed phone call, BUT, he did Google Maps the body dumpsite for 41 seconds. He had a router in his house. She might have been in a black dress with no necklace buying stuff on that HT video you saw, but domestic violence. Here's a router log. He dunnit.
Do you see how this is kind of a mess? If not, I'll just wait to see the rest and we can fight it out in the replays. I wasn't disagreeing that the evidence could be allowed or not. I was saying/typing that the problem is not with it's introduction, it's with it being contradicted in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses to date, being asked questions by the prosecution, who are now gonna recall the same witnesses and ask NEW questions about the same things with different answers and risk this:
GIVING THE IMPRESSION TO THE JURY THAT EVEN THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HECK THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT...they are just gonna keep shaking the evidence tree seeing what fruit may fall.
And this is a jury who is saying: Can we go home now?
