Haven't had a chance to watch yesterday's hearing, but getting the general gist from comments here and
@arielilane's coverage (thank you so much!
). Really just wanted to say that this was one
defense summoned witness giving testimony out of context to the hearing as a whole (cos logistics). So imo, the bigger picture likely remains pretty obscure atm.Moo
I think D opposed P's initial motion to close this hearing mainly for strategic reasons: it's a prime opportunity to attempt to question State's and it seems LE's competence in the public realm prior to trial. This is what AT, in so many words, articulated as the
right of her client at the previous hearing, whereby IIRC Judge found it necessary to point out that pre trial hearings, depending on context, differ as regards her client's right to a public trial. P made reference to earlier stipulations re non dissemination order; both sides have claimed that they want to avoid 'trial by media' before the trial has even started. Obviously since May 2nd, enough info provided for JJJ to make an informed decision as to content (evidence wise) and open hearing with provisos. Moo
Not saying there's anything wrong or even unusual re the D's flexible strategising per se, only noting the irony. Jmo
May 2nd Hearing as source for above (time stamped at approx 37:20 for some of JJJ's comments re fair trial).
RBBM
Says it all really. Out of context.
This was the step right before table pounding and demonstrates why she argued so fiercely to have the hearing livestreamed.
Theatre.
We should make no mistake. BK has a right to a trial before a jury of his peers. BK has a right to a vigorous defense. I'm not so sure he has a RIGHT to televised hearings. I'm not so sure he as a RIGHT for the public to know much of anything that the Court hadn't ruled as admissible for trial purposes!
The Defense called a detective who did in fact investigate BK on some dates and in some fashion. He has training in cellular data and CAST analysis but didn't function in that capacity in this case. Not the expert.
AT has been arguing loudly about missing discovery and missing audio and missing video.
Let me try to simplify yesterday.
DOT has cameras. But they don't record. Third-party websites, like WINDY.com, nab screenshots that they then incorporate for their own purposes, as I understand it.
Some time long ago, detectives went to that site, looked at it archival, in assuming, and found NOTHING. Mostly daytime screen shots, nothing relative to the timeframe in question (November 12/13).
This detective was asked, presumably by the State to satisfy the Defense, to gather what he could. Which he did. Likely searched through old emails to determine what files were involved. Looked at those files, opened them but did not manipulate them (except for one case of converting to the correct time) and didn't save them. Not work product. He pulled one screenshot, even though it had zero evidentiary value, turned it over along with the emails and files to the State who has them for the Defense.
It was a whole lot of nothing!
That lead went nowhere.
Not helpful to the State's case, not exculpatory and therefore IMO it doesn't even come close to the threshold of disclosure/discovery!
IMO AT is hoping to confuse the public, the media, the Judge and the jury pool. She's after headlines that imply the State is withholding discovery, namely exculpatory evidence, and that BK is somehow railroaded.
It's artful and enthusiastic but it's not substantiative! Screenshots that depict nothing and aren't even part of the State's case!
Argue the minutiae because the big picture is devastating!
JMO
