Yes, when I first read the paragraph about the DD order, I didn’t see the plural possessive, witnesses’, nor did I pay attention to the fact that it says the DD receipt provides a timeline for XK before the homicides
and corroborates State’s witnesses’ testimony.
View attachment 598660
Source
I want to know if the DD driver, MM, will actually testify.
The DD receipt is self-authenticating, so MM wouldn’t necessarily have to testify that she dropped off the food at 3:59 am and snapped the photo.
MM will, however, have to testify if the DD receipt will
also be used to corroborate
her testimony that she saw BK’s car.
Unfortunately, I still don’t see how MM could have seen BK himself, at least enough to ID him, since, according to the Hippler (via the State):
Source
If anyone can figure out how
both can be true (MM saw and can ID Kohberger
and the sole eyewitness is DM), please tell us here, because I would LOVE for MM to be another person who saw BK, but without a mask on.
Is there some clever lawyer-speak that makes this possible? Because I don’t think the State will allow MM to testify that she saw BK himself unless she told them that soon after the murders.
Of course, if MM can testify that she saw a white car next to the murder house with no front license plate, a PA back license plate, and the
silhouette of a man within the car, then that would be pretty good testimony, wouldn’t it?
IMOO
I believe that she has to testify.
Self authenticating just means that the records provided can be entered in as evidence without having to have the official custodian of that record (usually the person who signed the Certificate of Authenticity...we've seen the one for the AT&T records, for example) come to trial, get up on the stand for all of 1 minute to be sworn in and say "yes, I swear that these records are the real records provided by the company I work for."
Now, in some cases in SOME jurisdictions, like the Murdaugh murder trial, the Defense can refuse to stipulate to have this evidence presented at trial without the custodian of records who provided that certificate of authenticity doing just that. It can really add to the length and expense of a trial since generally the custodian of records for big companies don't live locally and they get generally get their travel and accommodations paid for by the side that is summoning them. Most of the time, defense doesn't do that unless they are wanting to be huge *!*&!) (which, Murdaugh's defense team infamously took pride in being)....because it really annoys the judge, but more importantly, it annoys the jury and takes up more of their time.
But in order for the evidence in those documents to then be presented and examined at trial, someone has to actually be testifying in a discussion of them. For example, FBI Agent Ballance will be talking about the AT&T records and how he used them in investigation, and what conclusions he drew. Then he can be cross examined. The security camera footage that shows MM & KG out and about before the murders and provides a timeline for their evening will be discussed by a member of LE. It is possible that if there was bartender who worked at Corner Club that night who is familiar with MM & KG due to them frequenting the place, that person may be called to testify as to the girls' general demeanor when they were there that night, if the bartender noticed anyone suspicious/unknown/unusual in the bar while the girls were there or hanging around them/staring at them repeatedly/etc.
Now, if Door Dash had happened earlier in the timeline, like 3 a.m., it would probably just be discussed by LE while establishing the timeline (pretend example: we know XK was awake at 3 am because records show she ordered JIB from DD, we found an empty JIB bag in the kitchen with a receipt that matches her DD order date/time stamp, and as already discussed by the coroner there was undigested food consistent with her order found in her digestive tract).
But because we have the DD happening so VERY close in time to the believed entry of the murderer, and because security camera footage shows what appears to be the believed suspect's vehicle in the immediate area right around the time of the delivery (and I would have to think the DD driver's vehicle shows up on some of the same security cameras), AND the DD driver is able to testify for themself at trial (they aren't dead, severely physically incapacitated and in the hospital, or highly mentally incapacitated), the State is going to absolutely want to have the DD driver on the stand. Especially because while the DD records tell time of delivery, none of the security camera coverage (that we know about) shows a direct view of the front of 1122 King itself. So they need the DD driver to talk about things that aren't in the DD records--when you approached the house, what lights were on that you could see? Was there much traffic on the roads in the neighborhood? Did you see a white car near the house as you approached/parked?Did you hear any sounds when you walked up to the house, either inside or out? If the records show that instead of dropping it at a door and taking a picture, you actually hand delivered it to someone, who did you give it to? What door? What was that person's general demeanor? As you walked back to your car/drove out of the neighborhood, did you notice any traffic in the neighborhood? If so, can you describe?
I honestly don't think that DD driver saw BK--as in, saw his face, could identify him in a line up. That would have been discussed in the court documents before now.
But if the person in the YT video is the actual DD driver, I think we have to take her words during a police interview when she brought in 2 yrs later for a different situation and was highly upset as a type of shorthand we all use when trying to quickly summarize something to another person without having to go into all the details. AKA--slightly exaggerated and fairly broad.
To me, her saying something like "I saw him" doesn't mean she saw even his face in an identifiable way. It probably means, I saw the silhouette of a person in a car. How can she say to the police in the YT police questioning that she knows it was him? Well, she depending on what she told the police during the investigation of the murders--what she did see could have been corroborated to her by the police or through things that have come out in media since that she has seen/read/watched.
I.E.--say in her initial interviews with police in Nov/Dec 2022, she tells the police that something like wht you said above in your last sentences--she saw a white 4 door sedan with only a rear plate parked or stopped near the house (somewhere in the nearby vicinity of her car, either while she was in her car or while she was walking to/from the house). Then, sometime after the interview, she sees the BOLO for a white Elantra and realizes that the police think the killer was in that car (I imagine she would have been following the case in the media or online at that point). At that point (whether the car had made her uneasy back when she saw it that night or not) she realizes that the car/silhouette she likely saw was the killer. So, her saying "I saw Bryan" when talking to police in her 2024 run in with the law can mean I saw the car that I later found out police believe BK was driving/so he was in it. So, DM is the only witness to actual intruder, DD driver is a witness to a vehicle that is believed to have been driven by him.
As to "I parked right next to him"--again, can be mild hyperbole in an emotional state while talking to police in 2024 when she thinks she's going to be in trouble with the law. It's shorthand. I'm not going to even try to parse what exactly it could mean.
