Sleuth5
LUDO ERGO SUM
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2008
- Messages
- 5,903
- Reaction score
- 314
Exactly, and they can't unring the statement they made that Caylee drowned that day accidently. They can't support that either.
As for the other statements about GA and LA and Kronk, if they don't address them the jury might just be left scratching their heads and saying to themselves, but wait didn't they say...
I see placing KC at the scene as a mistake. JMHO. I see the statement of accidental drowning as an affirmative defense and they've already said it...so how can you unsay it?
JMHO
ITA. There are few alternatives for the DT, having boxed themselves into a corner in this case. None of their options look good. The story as presented in their OS is not evidence and the jury will be instructed to disregard it -- that leaves only testimony from ICA as a remedy. However, even were they foolish enough to attempt that move, they would open the door to all sorts of countermeasures by the SAO -- cross examination would be brutal and destroy her in short order, but there's also the possibility that the DT would inadvertently grant an opening to introduce the six felony convictions as probative of the jury disregarding her testimony (as though that would be necessary!).
They can't have it both ways. If there was an accidental drowning, their defendant is going to have to take the stand and come clean with yet a new and improved story, this time offered as a genuine confession and eliminating the involvement of everyone else. The statement would have to include the duct tape and some explanation for it. I mean, that's the only way out -- and it wouldn't work anyway.
:cow: