beach
Verified Expert
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 18,370
- Reaction score
- 4,471
Beach, if the only SINGLE thing the SA can prove conclusively (and it seems they can) is the diary was not in stores until 2004 I think that's significant on its own. It might be worth presenting that fact to the jury and let them decide for themselves. I don't think they'll be confused. They can ignore it if they want -- if the defense brings a good argument against it then they will deem it meaningless. It won't hurt the prosecution's credibility, I don't think.
The fact that it is dated with a wrong year is big. Enough to show deception and the jury may wonder why. Put that with what is actually written and it's meaningful. I think even if the ink is not dated it could be used effectively.
And also, we don't know how long that diary was in the store for sale, from 2004 until? Maybe it's being sold to this day and was bought on the eve of Caylee's murder. It's a decent theory. The prosecution could make a strong argument if they choose.
I know what you are saying.
The thing is, IMO, sometimes less really is more. The State needs to focus on those things that cannot be disputed. The 31 days...the fact that there is no Zanny...the rare brand of Henkel duct tape found on Caylee's skull was the same tape that was used to hang the Caylee is Missing posters...the decomp stain in the Pontiac...the high levels of chloroform...etc... There is NO defense to those things. Try as they might, there is nothing that JB or CM can say to lessen the impact of those.
If they were to introduce this diary and there is not proof positive that it was written in 2008, that is going to be the thing that the defense harps on endlessly. They will use it to shift focus from the really damning things I listed above and try to get jurors to focus on "what might have happened", as they present an alternate theory. They will attempt to get jurors to lose trust in the prosecutors. I just don't think the State really needs this diary that bad. If there wasn't so much evidence, then yes, I would agree. It is just too big of a roll of the dice, imo. Why take the risk when you don't have to, kwim?