Well, yes "we" have - just not in sources that we can discuss here.
SM is as real, to a court or to an attorney, as MSM or what we write here on WS. It's all discoverable.
Witnesses should do what they, themselves, believe to be right. No one should make ethical decisions based on hypothetical legal situations. We'd all be struck dumb and might as well be zombies.
There are tons of cases where witnesses spoke to many others before speaking to LE. And often, there are (good) reasons for that.
To be clear, I don't have a problem with anyone talking to friends, coworkers, neighbors, family, etc
before going to LE about any matter. People may seek the input of others when unsure about a course of action. That's often a natural thing to do, in my opinion. If RD did that, fine.
If there is a potential criminal matter looming though, I don't see how it helps to speak to the media
after one has conveyed information to LE. I'm sure reporters pursue potential witnesses all the time. Reporters pursue all kinds of people involved in high profile cases all the time. But providing comments to those pursuing reporters usually isn't helpful. And I expect LE discourages witnesses from commenting.
Perhaps in this case, as some have suggested here on WS, the release of the blurry truck tape was sanctioned by LE. While loudly protesting the release of the tape, while lambasting the media for the damage that kind of premature information release could do to the case, while expressing some distress the tape was out there, while muzzling one media outlet but perhaps secretly collaborating with another...Maybe it was all an elaborate set-up to rattle a potential suspect and to increase public interest in the case (although that was already awfully high.) I don't personally believe that but I suppose that's not impossible.
But if I designed such a set-up, I'd have had RD be less vocal and more consistent in what he said to reporters about when and why he found the footage. I'd also not ask that he opine on whether GS looked drugged. And I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have him tell reporters what LE allegedly said or what AS allegedly said.
And if it was a set-up, who is to say the tape we saw wasn't just blurred and truncated with audio removed. Maybe it was doctored in other ways by LE? There are those odd shadows, after all. Photoshopping something or someone out perhaps?
I don't really believe that hypothesis. But once everything is seen through the lens of LE outting the tape while faking concern over its release, it's just a hop, skip, and a jump to more serious conspiracy theories. And I'm not sure that's helpful either.
JMO
