So you believe BP changed what DM said in her interview when he was writing the PCA?
Initially. After reading the following posts and yours IDK why there are multiple descriptors.
There are two descriptions. IMO
One we see in the PCA and the description AJ stated in court (which included different/more descriptors and seemed complete except the brows part was not mentioned). IMO
The P says DM was consistent throughout.
The D didn't directly address it.
BP is the affiant of the PCA exhibit.
The Judge had questions about DMs statements in the PCA exhibit. Including why they were important for the magistrate. AJ said ID and timing.
IMO when I read (PCA) vs. hear (AJ), I get a different body type image and height image. Others feel different.
JMO
First, BP had DM's interview in hand when he wrote the PCA. He would have had her statements before him. AJ did not. Who is more likely to be accurate about what DM actually said.
This is a great point. TY.
And DM could have used all of the descriptors at different times along the investigation.
IMO AJ would know what DM said.
The hearing was about what was included in the PCA.
The Judge has the interviews, PCA, brief and the response.
JMO
During the hearing, around 2:00:00, AJ addressed the defense's contention that omitting portions of DM's interview in the PCA supported their motion for a Franks, that omitting these portions of the interview would have changed the magistrate's mind when issuing the warrant. She told the judge, "I can tell you generally she consistently gave the same set of facts."
200:16 AJ says the D has two ? of attacks. First DM told LE, when shown a picture, didn't recognize the defendant (did AT bring this up in the hearing? I don't recall it being brought up by AT and couldn't find it).
The Judge then questions the relevance of DMs statements that were included in the affidavit as to PC. AJ replies I cited those in my response. He responds what were they. AJ says I can tell you generally, consistently she gave the same set of facts. Judge: I understand the things she said. Why was it important the magistrate know those things. ID or timeline. AJ Both.
Judge (201.31) So it is part ID as well?
Then the description portion of the hearing.
JMO
The judge then asked her why it was important to the PCA to include the portions of the interview that they did. AJ was really flustered by this, and was struggling to answer. The judge had to help her out and asked her--was it going to the ID of the perpetrator, was it helping to establish a timeline?
She said yes, the description DM provided helped to establish that someone who looked like she described was in the residence at the time the crimes were occurring. She said the general description was consistent throughout all her interviews. She did not have DM's interview in front of her so that she could read what DM had actually said. She told the judge, "She describes seeing someone wearing all black, a mask with only a portion of their face showing and visible. This person was male, white, she heard a voice that was not something that she recognized. The person was a slim, skinny, lean build, and the person was about, was taller than she was, is, around 5'8"...That general description did not change."
Second, the greatest evidence that BP did not change the description given by DM when he wrote the PCA is the fact that AT never mentions it.
She never says once in anything I watched (please correct me if I'm wrong and link to the time) that BP changed the description.
Does anyone here think she wouldn't bring that in if it were true?
No, AT doesn't mention it as a changed description.
104:55 She says: Person that was interviewed said that she heard things and saw things in her house. But what is written in the PCA is seriously lacking in detail, it's wrong, and it's false in many places.
Then she goes into credibility.
Then moves on to the car.
We have not seen the brief nor the response to the brief.
JMO
She started addressing DM's statements at about 1:05:00. Her entire focus was on her contention that the PCA omitted statements by DM and that inclusion of these statements would have changed the magistrate's decision. She said that DM was sure she heard one of the victims in particular run up the stairs and then down the stairs. DM repeated this multiple times across multiple interviews. The defense contends that not including that in the PCA was an omission that could have changed the magistrate's mind because it went to the credibility of the witness. Because it wasn't possible that the victim DM named could have done that. AT also says that DM's statements about it feeling like a dream and being intoxicated should not have been omitted. Not once does she have an issue with the description given by DM being different than the one written by BP in the PCA. If it was different, she would have.
After AJ gave her argument and used the description quoted above, AT had a chance to rebut, and again, did not take issue with the description. Did not mention it. What would be a more relevant argument for a Franks--that they did not include portions of DM's interview that were not material to pointing at the defendant, or that they actually changed what DM said he looked like to fit the what BK looks like? If they had done that, AT would have argued it.
The part about a roommate running up and down the stairs is kind of interesting though. I think this is the first we've heard that.
It is the first we heard it.
And some of the description from AJ.
And new information relating to the CAST.
And about unknown male blood.
JMO
What if DM thought it was KG or MM but it was really XK? What if XK, still awake, heard something and ran upstairs to see what was going on, saw BK and ran back down, telling EC, "There's someone here." And maybe he then had to run after her before she could call 911, leaving the sheath behind.
JMO
Possible.
She heard it. It could be anyone. Why did she think it was KG/MM?
The D didn't think it was possible.
Did the P directly address the stairs in the hearing?
JMO
