I did, too, and I think MAYBE this post came in that form, from a joking SoL-impostor, later. The V-card part would make better sense then -- one of those folks picking up on the "he told LE he was a virgin" theme and working it in there. The best I can tell on that site, you could probably post with any name you choose, though I'm not SURE -- and certainly you can post anonymously. Someone could have done that and just said, "This is SoL checking in", etc.
But, like you, I have a real hard time thinking this is an actual screw-up, that the DA would bungle THAT bad. Let's hope not!
I do think it is possible, however, that if such a post was made by another "SoL", the DA might, might, might -- make reference to SM's real internet postings as SoL, then bundle this one on in for effect. It would not be completely untruthful to state, then, that the post was made by SoL.
This was a highly-anticipated bond hearing... and one that was bound to receive major media coverage. Kind of like with the commitment hearing, I'm sure careful thought was given to what previously-unannounced evidence could be "sacrificed" to make an impact yet not tip the prosecution's hand any more than needed, any sooner than necessary.
The underwear evidence had been leaked, so its value to-save-for-trial got a little diluted -- the sheet, well, I have a feeling that the blood, for whatever reason, has not been identified as Lauren's --don't believe Winters stated it has, anyway. And this post -- well, if things were something like I'm hypothesizing, it might look really handy, for the need of the moment. The only stumper for me would be that Winters would have the gall to present it in such a tricky fashion directly to the judge...but I do think it's possible.
I know I am being bull-headed about this -- if I turn out to be wrong, I'll take my lumps. But this is important to me, because (a) if it turns out to be true, it will probably knock me off the fence, and (b) I just have a gut-level hunch something is hokey with this one.
Most folks out in media-land don't read here, don't have the history we have with these posts. They are not going to scrutinize and wonder and ponder like us -- it will just bombshell them, maybe undo a little of the questioning in this case that seems to have arisen of late with some of the public at large.
bessie, you, with many others, say you have always deemed the posts very important to the case, while I have said several times before they are probably what I weight the least -- with one of the main reasons being that, disturbing as some might be, I see no direct connection with the crime. This post, if genuine, of course, would be a way different story.
Nobody answered me a page or so back when I asked whether anyone knew whether the April 20 deadline for disclosure to the defense that is stated in one link I posted is correct. If it is -- if this post is to be presented as evidence -- I sure hope the defense gets all the details on this one. And not because I wish to see a murderer go free, either.
Which brings a question to mind: If Winters referenced this post but does NOT plan to present it as evidence (if it has served its purpose already, in other words) -- would it still have to be included in disclosure?
