Looked at the timeline for 2010 again, and the question of what MM said wrong fell into place.
The told MM what he said contradicted what she'd been telling her attorneys for the past year. One year earlier, in August 2010, the DT had finally been ordered to produce the original letters or to disclose the "source" of letters to JM. The told one story or another about that in sealed proceedings.
My guess is MM had just told the DT another version (or in part) about the how and why and when it was he claimed to have seen the original letters. Thinking it over, MM wouldn't have been allowed to testify about anything else relating to the letters. The evidentiary hearing on the 8th was about whether or not the letters could be authenticated. The experts couldn't say definitely. because they were working from copies.
The needed MM to authenticate the letters by saying he'd seen them. The letters were supposedly from TA to the ; being neither author or recipient, MM couldn't have testified about the content of the letters, much less be asked questions about "factual" discrepancies having to do with their content.
His testimony had to be about the provenance of the letters. Nurmi alludes to this,perhaps, in his book, saying that he asked her questions about who had access to the originals, how that came to pass, etc, and that she had answered him, but he couldn't divulge what she said because of attorney-client privilege.
When Nurmi saw those coded magazines he had to have realized not only was the trying to witness tamper, but that she was doing so to keep Matt's story consistent with the lies she'd told Nurmi a year earlier about MM and the letters.
The told MM what he said contradicted what she'd been telling her attorneys for the past year. One year earlier, in August 2010, the DT had finally been ordered to produce the original letters or to disclose the "source" of letters to JM. The told one story or another about that in sealed proceedings.
My guess is MM had just told the DT another version (or in part) about the how and why and when it was he claimed to have seen the original letters. Thinking it over, MM wouldn't have been allowed to testify about anything else relating to the letters. The evidentiary hearing on the 8th was about whether or not the letters could be authenticated. The experts couldn't say definitely. because they were working from copies.
The needed MM to authenticate the letters by saying he'd seen them. The letters were supposedly from TA to the ; being neither author or recipient, MM couldn't have testified about the content of the letters, much less be asked questions about "factual" discrepancies having to do with their content.
His testimony had to be about the provenance of the letters. Nurmi alludes to this,perhaps, in his book, saying that he asked her questions about who had access to the originals, how that came to pass, etc, and that she had answered him, but he couldn't divulge what she said because of attorney-client privilege.
When Nurmi saw those coded magazines he had to have realized not only was the trying to witness tamper, but that she was doing so to keep Matt's story consistent with the lies she'd told Nurmi a year earlier about MM and the letters.
