I have a theory that the defence damaged their own case with a poorly thought out, OTT trial strategy that prioritised BOOM motions for public consumption over getting useful evidence admitted at trial.
It is necessary to piece together a bit of background to explain this
In a recent interview with
The Prosecutors, KG explained that the defence had been seeking to tap into a conspiracy theory involving the witness P. (
link at approx 30 mins). The D called P as a witness at trial. P was on the Bridge with friends after the victims that day and saw and heard nothing.
However according to KG, there existed conspiracies against the person back in the early days of this case. According to MS's
discord leaks relating to the Due Process gang, the D investigator tried to work with youtubers to develop this conspiracy using geofence evidence from the discovery which he allegedly showed to the youtubers.
Fast forward to 13 March 2004 and the remarkable "
France III - The Geofence" gets filed with this claim
View attachment 544616
Now according to MS, para 9(c) is particularly disturbing as the D was obviously well aware these kids were not the killers. The prosecutor reacted strongly with the result beng that the geofence map got excluded from the case. Indeed as far as I am aware, at the 3 day hearing the D did not even bring a cellular / geofence expert to make their case for inclusion.
So the net result was that a the map which could have been a useful moment at trial for them got excluded because they made wild claims that they couldn't back up at the pre-trial hearing.
Now, I am not a huge fan of the Judge's skimpy ruling on Geofence but I do believe
@m00c0w is correct that far from excluding all geofence/warrant/cast/phone evidence as repeatedly claimed by the Bob Motta, Lawyer Lee etc - the Judge actually just said what the law is anyway - the evidence could only come in if relevant and not misleading. And to my knowledge the D never tried to put any of that kind of evidence on the record at trial.
This feels like a huge blunder to me. They could have saved this to simply put this exhibit to the witness at trial, (state would object) or even call their own phone expert.
Instead they tried to do a back door SODDI against a witness who never was the killer based on conspiracies.
Very poor work IMO.
MOO