I agree that in general LE is good. They have done an enormous amount of work in this case, as proven by the amount of documents generated. Yes, they do make errors at times. When errors are made on extremely important pieces of evidence, that is not good, especially when it is a dp case.
Here in the court of public opinion we can formulate our own opinions and most of us do.
(CLIPPED FOR BREVITY)
Very eloquently stated, and I appreciate how well thought out and written your opinions are.
It will be interesting to see how many of our opinions, thoughts, impressions will change once the trial is over.
I also have my opinion, which agrees with yours on some issues, others not so much, but that is not the purpose of my reply.
I think it is important for all of us to remember that we have received bits and pieces of documents from LE in the time frame of the last year, but not in any type of chronological order.
When it comes time for trial, all we have seen (and some we have not seen yet, I suspect) will be laid out for a jury in a chronological order, with expert testimony to substantiate the meaning to the case (from LE perspective) that will tell a story from beginning to end, as opposed to printed documents that we are left to decipher on our own.
As an analogy, if I told you about a really good book I read and wanted to share it with you, but only sent you a chapter at a time, one every couple of months, NOT in sequential order, it would be very hard to follow the story and details from beginning to end.
I believe a jury (and us!) will have a much easier time at trial time, as all these documents will be presented in sequential order, from beginning to end, and will not just be handed to a jury as a "handout" to decipher for themselves, but with relevance verbalized, and in a much shorter time frame than we have received them.
