Hey, Everyone. I've been following along but also jumping around, so please forgive me if this has already been discussed.
It seemed odd to me that in the Defense's closing arguments, he said that the State did not know where the crime scene was. But, his client told the court that the one sweater-man who was in the front seat got out of the car on 385th and was gone for 10 minutes before putting something in the trunk. When they got to the cornfield and the sweater-men disappeared into the countryside, he said her dead body was in the trunk, so he took her out and hid her. So, according to Bahena himself, the murder happened on 385th, so if we're to believe the Defense's case, the crime scene was the side of the road on 385th. Did the Defense not shoot himself in the foot with that comment? Or is he only saying the State did not say, "Here's where the crime happened"?
It seemed odd to me that in the Defense's closing arguments, he said that the State did not know where the crime scene was. But, his client told the court that the one sweater-man who was in the front seat got out of the car on 385th and was gone for 10 minutes before putting something in the trunk. When they got to the cornfield and the sweater-men disappeared into the countryside, he said her dead body was in the trunk, so he took her out and hid her. So, according to Bahena himself, the murder happened on 385th, so if we're to believe the Defense's case, the crime scene was the side of the road on 385th. Did the Defense not shoot himself in the foot with that comment? Or is he only saying the State did not say, "Here's where the crime happened"?