ynotdivein
Retired WS Staff
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 11,425
- Reaction score
- 70
AFAIK and based on the State's response on this issue, they don't want to drag in the "details" at all. They barely gave three lines to Rusciano because apparently that hook-up pre-dated Caylee's disappearance. The State's aim is not to paint KC as a tramp, because it's secondary to proving their case and they can make the point well enough using only evidence between 6/15 and 7/15. The defense's claims that they are trying to drag KC's reputation through the mud just smack of "the lady doth protest too much" IYKWIM.
But the State does have good reason to look at how KC behaved with her new boyfriend TonE during the time period of June 15 through July 15/16. As the State points out in their response, if he was her boyfriend and she had essentially moved in during that timeframe, there was a certain level of intimacy implied in that relationship. So if Caylee had really been kidnapped, and KC really was so frantically searching for her during that 31 days--what are the odds that she never, ever mentioned any of this to TonE her new boyfriend/lived-in-with lover during this timeframe?
But the State does have good reason to look at how KC behaved with her new boyfriend TonE during the time period of June 15 through July 15/16. As the State points out in their response, if he was her boyfriend and she had essentially moved in during that timeframe, there was a certain level of intimacy implied in that relationship. So if Caylee had really been kidnapped, and KC really was so frantically searching for her during that 31 days--what are the odds that she never, ever mentioned any of this to TonE her new boyfriend/lived-in-with lover during this timeframe?