OneLostGrl
I'm going against the grain- I'm going sane
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 14,316
- Reaction score
- 35
Here's kind of my issue. It would be one thing to ask TL as an example for phone records that are relevant to the case. However the defense has shown time and time again that they are fishing by asking for phones records that exist outside the realm of this case.
To me I still question the relevance of the JK interview unless the defense has full intention of saying RK murdered and disposed of Caylee. The one problem with that is Casey's testimony, and second that RK had no ties to the Anthony family.
I would also hold JK's statements with a little more weight provided it could be backed up by something/anything. Right now all they are is unconfirmed, not under oath statements made by an individual who may have an agenda and has been convicted of fraud and other various crimes.
RK on the other hand reported an incident to police not once but multiple times. He could have just said well I called and left it at that or not called at all. He informed his employer of his past arrest even though the charges were expunged. Something he was not required to do but did. To me that shows a certain amount of honesty and character.
So to me given that RK does not have ties to the Anthony's, does not drive a silver compact car, is not Hispanic, or match anything remotely in line with Casey's testimony. How is JK's statements relevant to RK finding the body? To me in order for JK's testimony to be relevant the defense would also have to show further evidence that RK is at least a POI or should be considered as one. The defense however hasn't released anything officially to the SA. This video "depo" was released to the media and not the courts.
Now if JK said she once saw RK plant evidence on someone when he was a bounty hunter I would say ok there that's relevant to RK finding the body. Then you could look at the police reports and confirm that yes that particular evidence was found on that fugitive when RK turned them in to authorities.
To me JK's statements are not very useful in this case until such a time as they are given under oath and presented to the SA as evidence in discovery.
So I guess we will see what the official story is with out editing and if it can be used as evidence later. That is when ever the defense decides on a date for trial and a deadline for presenting discovery.
IMO this woman is useless (in more ways than one) and we will never see her at trial. Good try though, JoseB. :angel: