So as remembered the civil lawsuit claims that the missing 18 miles were because BM drove to Salida Stove and Spa and back on the afternoon of the 9th
This is 'highly exculpatory' information that the prosecution withheld.
And yet, it appears nowhere in the truck telematics, which IE fails to mention - therefore it obviously did not happen and the mileage is missing.
I don't care for the purposes of the civil suit. Rather, what it interesting is this is the defence trial version.
However these things might play in terms of 'highly exculpatory information withheld' clearly they don't work as a trial defence strategy. The reason Grusing knew to ask Barry about the missing mileage is because it could only have occurred after 3.49am on the trip to Bloomfield because other then reversing down the driveway, the truck never left PP again that day. The reason he knew BM turned left is location data showed it. The reason BM confirmed it, is because he knew Grusing already knew it.
Whatever IE wants to say about static drift, BM is tied into the left turn unless he decides to testify. The reason is static drift is simply a way to explain how the data record might be wrong. But BM confirmed the data was correct, and the mileage has to be somewhere - as does the 4+hr journey time - what the hell was he doing?
I am fairly certain we would find this about lots of the other claims if we had the data.
e.g IE claims it is highly exculpatory that there were only 18 truck events between 3-4am and not 80 - but why were there any??? BM himself claimed he did not leave until much later in his first alibis