Yikes...Listening to the state's argument about all the discovery issues, including missed deadlines is frustrating.
JA is going to file a motion to exclude all the evidence they gave him TWO days ago.
That suggests that the evidence inculpates, doesn't it?
I wonder what it is.
Hints:
Lori's attorneys want it excluded all together, having seen it.
Chad's attorney wants to have his experts analyze it, but it seems like severing trials was the goal.
The prosecution was scheduling trials before it even came to light, so it seems rather unimportant to them.
In addition, it is becoming clearer that Lori's attorneys are not in agreement with her decision to assert her right to a speedy trial. That suggests that the rush causes more harm than the new evidence.
(Tangental thought to the above: Lori's attorneys are hinting that they dispute her competence but respect the court's determination of competence. They are also saying that Lori is making decisions against their advice. In my opinion, they are implying that Lori knows their role, and is considering, then rejecting, their advice. If that is what's going on, she is competent IMO; poor judgement is not the same as incompetence. If the attorneys are asserting Lori is not competent, they should have said she doesn't comprehend that their role, not that they respect her decision against their advice.)
I guess it's not just the evidence I wonder about.
I wonder if the trial will happen in April.
I think the prosecution is ready.
Chad is delaying and severing with the help of his attorney. The recent changes favor Chad a lot.
If Lori's judgement improves, she might waive her right to a speedy trial after all to join the trial again.
If she goes to trial first I wonder if she will turn on Chad. She should. (I think she is guilty but I also agree Chad manipulated her; maybe she could convince someone more charitable that it's all Chad's fault.) But she hasn't telegraphed a strategy like Chad has- by having kids claim he was framed and having his attorney say he has a diametrically opposed defense strategy. If she says Jesus is cool with my actions but I understand the State of Idaho is not, she is basically confessing. So what is her strategy?
If she prefers trial with Chad (and she reportedly does) what does that say about what her strategy is? The same confession above, but with Chad there to agree this was for Jesus? Or the I was manipulated by Chad defense but with him there to---what?---confirm he did manipulate her?
Wouldn't that be easier to pull off without him around to deny it or even around to sit at a table making indignant faces, modeled by his lawyer?
I'm not getting Lori's strategy at all. I do think she is competent because she is reportedly considering and rejecting advice, which her lawyers "respect." They say there are other opinions about her competence, but they are not expressing with exasperation that she is not really making decisions at all.
But, competent as I think she is, she does not seem to be making good legal decisions.
Chad, btw, reportedly does not understand why he's sitting in jail, so he seems to think he did nothing wrong. Or nothing THAT wrong. (According to HTC and his sister-in-law) Yet he has accepted sitting in jail for years- perhaps he thinks the time for hiding bodies is a given anyway. And Chad follows his attorney's advice.
I can't figure out where this is going. My bet is Lori waives speedy trial and hopes to rejoin the trials. Then Chad objects, delays or waits until Lori loses her ability to make decisions again, then hops into his trial, blaming her.
MOO. MOC. (My Own Conjecture.)