A confession of someone who raped Holly shortly after she was kidnapped would be irrelevant to her murder?..........Seriously??????
Mainly because....... "To be admitted in their trial the prosecutors would need to produce DA to make the claims in court"
Partly because......."Not to mention that he was charged AFTER cooperating with police, which implies that whatever testimony he was offering them is highly dubious"
For the first part .....they do not need DA to testify against them......granted it would help the prosecution greatly but if he doesn't you will see the excited utterance law disputed by both sides and ruled on by the judge.
The second part happens all the time....plus is there even a deal?....he is still charged with rape and tampering with evidence.Unless he was involved with her murder what have they given him?
I am not sure the rape confession and the tampering with evidence are the exact same confession.......I am aware of what little is known about the tampering charges but the rape charges came a month later shortly after her remains were found.
The timeline suggests DA confessed to her rape shortly after her remains were found.......so we can be assured they interviewed him again and he may have cracked.
^^^....once again if there are facts that dispute this time line I would like to see them and could easily change my stance on the timeline.
But this confession(whatever it is) is a huge problem for the defense.
You don't understand the law.
Firstly, DA didn't "confess" to anything. The charges were based on stuff he allegedly told TBI agents during an interview, and since he was supposedly cooperating with them (and presumably would have therefore been protected), the decision to charge him is simply dumbfounding. He should be their star witness, but they are charging him??? Really???
Since the agents who supposedly heard this corroborated each other (and DA denies it), presumably there was no recording. And certainly no signed "confession". So in the abduction/murder trial, what can the prosecution produce about this? Nothing! Without DA's testimony in trial it is hearsay and therefore inadmissible. In the US you have the right to confront your accusers in trial, and in this particular case, subject their testimony to cross examination. Since DA is not dead and most certainly is available, in order for these claims to be admissible HE has to say so in open court so that the defense can subject him to cross. And since the prosecution have chosen to charge HIM, that is not very likely since it would leave him with no defense in his own trial.
The only way DA's statements would be admissible would be in his own trial (not the trial of the other two). And even then, if the interview was not recorded and DA subsequently denies it, the state will still have to produce evidence to corroborate it, and I doubt they have any of that.
The decision to charge DA strongly implies that the case against the other two is all but dead. It is a last gasp effort to salvage something from the case.
