She says NO key was lost.
http://www.macon.com/2012/04/24/2001930/blood-hair-found-in-refrigerator.html
There was discussion about the apartment's liability when it was revealed that McD was in possession of a master key. Obviously, at least to me, the owners bear some responsibility for failure to account for, and secure, a key that can unlock all of the doors in the complex,
IF McD is found guilty, and it is shown in court that the key was used to carry out the crime (and I'm pretty certain that's not limited only to accessing LG's apartment). That seems to be the main issue. The non-working cameras, etc., etc., are just the usual padding.
Unlike the OJ case, it's not a wrongful death claim, but a civil liability claim. Nor is it going forward, per se. The letter is a proposal for an out of court settlement not predicated on McD's guilt or innocence. We've heard a little of the evidence so far, but not enough to make a fair prediction of the outcome. Pretty soon, we'll know of more, or the lack thereof, and the scales will tip. It's a gamble for both sides, and this is the appropriate time to make the offer while the odds are even. If you're the plaintiff's attorney, you write a big scary letter (which doesn't add up to much, as you've pointed out), with the objective to gain a settlement, sparing your clients the agony and expense of a trial down the road. If you're the defendant/insurer, you assess the risks and make a decision to wait it out, or agree to a settlement now to avoid further litigation, and potentially a hefty payout.
As for the Telegraph, I don't see any bias here. The issue isn't McD's guilt or innocence. It's whether the property owners are liable to LG's estate (heirs, family), and IMO, both sides are well represented in the article. :moo:
