MarthaM
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 871
- Reaction score
- 8
I always wondered why the SA didn't use that liner as evidence..the stain on the liner???
My guess is that they knew that the defense could just call a different expert who could make a different outline that showed something else altogether, or that could dissect each element that the prosecution's outline allegedly shows and match it up to something else it could be. I think it would have really hurt the prosecution in the end if they'd used it, and led to an even quicker NG verdict. It might have looked like the prosecution was really reaching to try and find/create evidence.
Why would they need to talk about an interview?
Maybe they said what they wanted to say during the interview. Isn't that the purpose of an interview?
I'm not understanding the need to give interviews or statements to talk about an interview.
JMO
I don't understand why they'd talk about it afterwards, either, or why it would be odd that they haven't. It's not like anything significant came out of the interview anyway; it was really pretty bland when you look back on it. I suppose a reporter could ask them how they thought the interview went, but even that's not newsworthy.