Equivocal Answer at PH re SM's $ Acct's?
... many people doing various tasks.... bank accounts... It's low of the defense to ask questions to people they know won't have the answers and then claim it just must not have been done...
bbm sbm
...the prosecution afaik didn't object,.. that's on record now and it's not "sneaky" or whatever by the defense ...
bbm sbm
@justtrish and
@abams Interesting points.
Briefly, the defense's cross exam Q's of LEO & LEO's answers at Prelim-Hear'g is
not evd. the jury will hear at trial.*
Not so briefly, I do not recall specific detail in this case, but will hypothesize re LEO's equivocal answer, only as to SM's bank accts.
P-H. ~
(?) Sept 2021
Def. XE:
Just now, the prosecutor asked about your investigation, and Det. Tracy, you said you learned that Vanessa Victim opened accts in her name only at First National Bk and at Money Managers R Us and deposited $XX,*advertiser censored* in each a/c on Feb 1. 2020, that is, three months before she was reported missing. And you said yes. Is that c
orrect?
Det. D. Tracy:
Yes.
Def's XE:
And did you learn if any withdrawals were made from either acct? Any debits, by card or ck?
If any deposits were made?
Tracy:
Not sure. Don't recall.
[[ ^ is Equivocal answer. I don't recall exact wording at BM's P-H, just that it was equivocal.]]
At
P-H Def. may already have known that Det. Tracy was not sure, did not recall, or did not know, so Def may have just wanted to create a
perception of LE faux-pas, for MSM to report
.
Further at P-H, Prosecutor may not (necessarily) object to Def's X-E imo. Why not?
1. Because the State knows there is further investigation to be done, and that an LEO giving an equivocal stmt at P-H, may be able to provide a definitive answer later, at trial.
2. Because on re-direct at P-H, knowing the answer the State can ask,
Were you assigned the task of verifying whether $ had been taken from these acct's?
Tracy:
No. it was assigned to Det. Sam Catchem.
W this equivocal answer at P-H, can the Def can use in closing arguments at trial, to show LE did a half-azzed investigation? No imo. Why not? It's part of total crim proceeding against BM but it's not trial evd. the jury will see & hear.
Trial. May 2022.
If Det. Tracy is called to the stand again, presumably after the P-H, he has had a chance to review the acct stmts and/or bank records and can testify that there was no accountholder-initiated activity.
Tracy saying "no activity" at trial does not indicate his earlier P-H testimony was false.
It - the fact of no activity in acct's - is something that he learns from his review of the appropriate documents
after the P-H.
So does Det. Tracy's testimony at P-H harm the State's case? Imo, no, not as long as the State is able to show these points, by putting Det. Tracy or other LEO on stand.
1. Det. Tracy (and possibly an additional LEO) was assigned to investigate these accounts.
2. Tracy and/or other LEO
reviewed accountholder statements & bank records.
3. Their review encompassed the appropriate
time period, from date the accts were opened until a given date, say ~ May 1, 2022.
4. Review ^ shows
no acct activity - no withdrawals, no card use, no checks, no deposits, etc. - that the
accountholder initiated.
my2ct.
___________________________
*
absent unusual circumstances imo.
