Replies

Yes, about Angela's remarks on LKL about Moul and the jeep. She really seemed to be dodging and weaving when she talked about it. I was totally baffled by her assertion that "he did not speak to the person that brought that jeep back, he observed." That statement was a blatant contradiction of what Moul said in his interview with Ashleigh Banfield, which I avidly watched.

Plus, when you bring a car in to an auto place, would you just leave the keys under the floor mat and leave? How would the auto guys even notice your auto was there, especially if it's a busy place? They may TELL you to leave the keys under the mat, but you're going to have some interaction with them b/f you just walk away from your vehicle. Moul's story is just far more credible than Angela's.

And you know, we don't even know what Angela said in the grand jury. She may have even taken the Fifth, and we wouldn't know about it. The secrecy would protect her, as well as protect the grand jury.

Moul--well, we don't know what he said in the GJ, either. But I can't imagine if he took the Fifth, obviously that would be a big red flag for the authorities. And obviously if he got out of telling the GJ anything, he wouldn't have been yapping to Ashleigh Banfield. I believe that Moul told the GJ the same thing he said on TV.

The whole bit about "someone else took the jeep out of the shop" is 100% smoke and mirrors, in my opinion.

Angela does not have to testify about confidential communications between herself and her husband, grand jury or no. There is a presumption that marital communications are confidential and the burden of proof is upon the government to overcome that. The privilege can be waived, depending on who "owns" it (husband or wife) and the presence of a third party means the communication is not confidential.

So Angela may have testified to virtually nothing before the grand jury, between her right not to incriminate herself and her duty not to reveal confidential communications between herself and her husband.