LE Holdbacks. Inconsequential Detail?
Could someone please explain to me how LS could jeopardize the investigation by sharing a piece of information with the public that she has uncovered, and is proven to be true? For example, let’s say LS knows when the Broomfield room was reserved? What’s the big deal? She knows, LE knows, and Barry knows when the room was booked....
@Minordetails (what a great username) bbm sbm Not to beat a dead horse here, but thought of another point about why LE generally does not publicly release
(much) info pre-trial, not like they did 50, 25, 10 yrs ago. True
(generally) in the big cities and small towns.
Your hotel-reservation-time example is one mere teensy, tiny, little, bitty factoid LE could release. I'd bet LE has hundreds (thousands?) plus
seemingly inconsequential bits of info in this case. Would also bet, if released to the public pre-trial, not a single one in and of itself would be fatal to prosecution's case.
If LE's investigation had uncovered a couple
video recordings from phones & security cams and had ten upstanding citizen
eye witnesses willing to testify to seeing perp shoot woman in head five times and bury her, LE & prosecutor would have
direct evidence juries like to see & hear to convict. Not happening here.
If/when Prosecutor proceeds, case will tie together hundreds of ^ pieces of
circumstantial evd --- like hotel reservation time --- to make the case in SM's death against whoever is responsible. A classic closing argument by prosecutors compares circumstantial evd to many pebbles piling up until their weight proves the defendant's guilt.
There's little or no reason for LE or prosecutor to publicly release such info* pre-trial. Doing that might allow those evidentiary pebbles to be washed away and result in a not-guilty verdict. my2cts.
______________________________
* Prosecution is compelled to give certain & evd to defense team to ensure def. an opportunity to present a defense.