Something I just thought of.......We had some former employees embezzle, forge checks, and steal a lot of money from us. Alot. (How this happened was stupidity on our part, but I won't digress as it is OT, and painful to relate.) But, we were told that if the perps would pay back the amount, that would be a factor that would weigh in w/ the state's (AZ) decision whether or not to bring it to trial. We were told that there are so many cases of fraud, forgery, and embezzlement that priority is assigned by the elements of how much $$ was stolen and how much (if any) restitution was made. This is a different state, and of course, the stakes in KC's case are much higher---her check fraud charges are directly tied to her murder charges. But, it makes me wonder if JB thought that if restitution was made, then the SA might decide not to spend time and $$ on the case. Of course, why would they let it go? It's part and parcel of her behavior and criminal activity after the "disappearance" of her 2 year old. I think he gambled on the Judge agreeing w/ him about the necessity to focus on her murder trial, and that the check fraud case should be delayed b/c of that.