(bold above by me)
I am considering the plausibility of LE taking photos of this diary page and subsequently releasing them as part of discovery without having taken the diary itself.
It just doesn't seem likely to me.
This leads naturally to the supposition that they are cherry picking their releases, which we knew, I guess, but more disturbingly that they constructed the listing of property taken into custody in such a fashion as to facilitate that.
The property lists give the appearance of being somewhat grouped by area, and would give the impression of being inclusive. If they structured the evidence collection report so that they could isolate certain specific items in a conscious, premeditated effort to control the scheduling of discovery release it would suggest that such items are of singular merit to their case.
We have all always figured that LE has lots of evidence that we haven't seen yet. We haven't yet (I don't think) had such a strong indication of certain specific items. This, of course, is dependent on the existence of "missing pages".
I know that's a lot of ''suppose's, and not just a bit paranoid. Any comments? What could we do to pursue this line of conjecture?
I don't think they would photograph something like this and not take it- the date "June 21" at the top is just too relevant. I would think they would take it to at least run the UPC to see when this item was offered for sale, and to test the pages for indents or the ink for dating.
I don't remember, but I know the warrant included art supplies- did they say they took art supplies or books? If so, this could be "included" in that - technically, diaries are often sold in art supplies stores.
IF there are missing pages, LE could be doing extensive testing to determine exactly when they were written- this wouldn't have to be released to the defense until all of the tests were completed.
My stronger hunch is that someone who was in the house- Traci M. or AD- saw the book and stole it, and handed it over to LE. It would explain why it isn't included in evidence, and why both of those people have lawyered up. TM and AD might not have known that stealing a book can result in having that evidence excluded as illegally obtained, and opens a whole can of worms about how much if any can be used. Then again, say AD did take it when she was at the A house. AD could say KC gave it to her- who could disprove that? KC would have to deny that she gave it to AD, and say it was stolen. But who is more credible- AD or KC?
Playing it out more, the defense could argue there is no rational reason for KC to give it to AD, so AD must have stolen it. But AD could say KC trusted her and asked her to destroy it, but AD had a change of heart and couldn't do that. IN FACT- maybe KC gave it to AD during the sleepover, and AD originally agreed to destroy it. Couldn't do it, and kept it for a while- then realized she had evidence of a crime, and finally spoke to LE. That could explain the lawyer because she didn't want to be accused of aiding and abetting. (THIS IS JUST AN IDEA, I HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT I'M JUST BRAINSTORMING).
I think if it exists and is relevant, this whole thing is being kept quiet until LE/SA figure out a way to make sure it is admissible. Why give JB 9 months to concoct some way to "prove" the evidence was illegally obtained?