Missyrocks5
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2022
- Messages
- 395
- Reaction score
- 3,243
I think there is plenty against her independent of any testimony she gave at trials. However, maybe the calculation will be they don't want to get bogged down in the expense and the time of Attorneys in litigating those issues through appellate courts. The case against her is far from a slam dunk. They have way more easily against DAMaybe they can do a charging document that doesn’t rely on something they got from something she said. They’re not stupid. They wouldn’t have asked her something that would lead to something they really needed. There is still that text asking if Dan will be home. There are cell tower records showing her driving by the scene. There is her police interview.
What did she say on the stand that gave them anything? They’re not going to go out and find additional evidence based on what she said. JMO. Again, they’re not stupid, and they anticipated this. They know what derivative use is.
And it is I'm sure part of the tactic in WA & her team leaking that information out there to dissuade them from arresting her. But I do think it is an uphill battle to prove the case against her beyond a reasonable doubt.