- Joined
- Nov 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,189
- Reaction score
- 16,861
Thank you so much blessedlife! Really appreciate you getting this. So much interesting information. I have the same recollection too, Kammiemc, about SS's sister being the controller?? And, there's the following from page 50 that I found interesting, but confusing:
"MS. BACH(prosecutor): Now, what I intend to ask this detective on redirect is have you confirmed his whereabouts? Yes, but I don't think that he needs to specify for the defense exactly how we have confirmed that. They're Winfield defendant if that's what he is, is not truly a Winfield defendant. So my point is even if W-1 is completely involved in this, that doesn't rule out the defendant. And so we think this goes beyond the probable cause finding that this Court needs to make and we think that they're just trying to learn basically the steps that we've taken thus far in the investigation to prove W-1's credibility."
It seems the Winfield reference is to some legal principle, IDK? Maybe a legal eagle could chime in?
not a criminal attorney but I gather it has something to do with when a defendant alleges SODDI (some other dude did it) - probably some standard of what has to be alleged/proven before evidence can be admitted
ETA: so I think the state is trying to say look, the defense hasn't made a Winfield argument so they shouldn't be able to allege there is another party with guilt. And that even if W1 was in on it it does not negate DW's role.