Attempting to interpret vague testimony as newer testimony arises is a much better effort than tossing out half the testimony from almost day one and sticking to that no matter what new testimony presents, IMO.
I am not tossing out half the testimony. First, KM's testimony is a small and increasingly smaller percentage of the total testimony.
Second, I am ready, willing and able to believe her tale of driving lessons and road rage the very instant someone produces some tiny shred of evidence that there were driving lessons or road rage that night. It's not a matter of "sticking to it no matter what"; it's a matter of waiting to see some evidence for such a loony tale before I give it any credibility. I have provided many reasons that I disbelieve her; it's my opinion they are good reasons.
The DA insists there were two different cars and that's coming from somewhere. Maybe you think he pulled it out of thin air. Why are you going to believe Mogg's testimony and not the conclusion the DA has reached based on evidence Mogg has provided the DA?
The DA is saying that the
road rager's silver car and DA's silver car were two different cars. That's coming from the spiky-haired dude being neither EN nor DA, and the tinted/not-tinted descriptions of the silver cars.
He is absolutely
not insisting that two of EN's friends arrived in two different cars, and he has most certainly not testified nor even suggested that two of EN's friends arrived in two different silver cars.
Let's take a look at what Mogg actually said -- the very closest that he came to "insisting" that two of EN's friends showed up in two different cars was this:
"At that point he called two friends whom he refused to identify to me and asked them to come and assist him. At one point he said that he was actually waiting in the park and didn't want to get into one of his friends' vehicles until the green car had left the area. Eventually the green car leaves the area. He said he got into the vehicle with a friend of his whom he described as a white male."
That's vague and imprecise. We already discussed this quite a ways back. EN could have said something to Mogg like "I called a couple of my friends. When one of them showed up, I didn't want to get in his car until the green car was gone," and in Mogg's testimony on that got summarized into "he called two friends .... he said that he was actually waiting in the park and didn't want to get into one of his friends' vehicles until the green car had left..."
Mogg never specifically said "Two of his friends came in two different cars. One of his friends arrived while the green car was still there, but EN didn't want to get in it because the green car was still there. When the other friend arrived, the green car had left, and EN got into that friend's car."
That was not testified to. Nothing like that was testified to. Mogg's testimony
allows for the possibility that two of EN's friends showed up in two cars, but it most definitely does not state such in anything approaching a direct statement that two cars showed up.
