Replies

In reading back over Kim's written statement in more detail for her time line of the events of 3/13 and 3/14, I wondered if maybe (don tinfoil hat) a bit of a ruse is being perpetrated by the DPD to fit the evidence to their theory.

Remember early on in the first or second hearing when Osborn, I think stated that the boys went outside the next morning and collected all of the stuff the AV dropped and brought it back inside. They subsequently led the cops with the search warrants to the items, which were collected.

Also we noted early on that it seemed queer that Kim had amended her statement to indicate the path she took when she went back into the house to locate Precious' stuff. This seemed to indicate the cops were thinking that the stuff wasn't back there as the boys had stated, cause Kim didn't see it when she went back inside.

Kim's amendment 1:45 after the original statement---

The point in time where I went to get Precious’ things from the house, I walked to the back of the house thru the side of the house outside. I enter the house from the outside from a back door. I looked in the bathroom to retrieve her things but could not find them. I exited the house the same way I came in, along the side of the house to my car without finding any of her items

In the same motion is a typed copy of Hinman's notes in which he almost verbatim restates Kim's hand written statement except for this interesting piece

From Hinman's notes...

03/22/06 - 1240HRS KIM PITTMAN CAME TO TALK ABOUT THE INCIDENT.

snip...

...BUT KIM DID NOT SEE HER THINGS. I MADE AN ATTEMPT TO GET HER THINGS. SHE STATED SHE GOT HER THINGS AND LOCKED THE DOOR WITH PRECIOUS INSIDE. SHE WENT TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE TO TRY TO RETRIEVE HER BAG. SHE LOOKED AROUND WITH DAN BUT WAS UNABLE TO FIND ANYTHING

This discrepancy seems a bit odd to me.. Maybe just a wording issue. When I read Hinman's statement it sounds like he's saying that she said they looked around the back of the house. And why would she amend her statement to include the path she took to get back into the house?

Another minor, by maybe telling discrepancy between Kim's written statement and Hinman's transcription.

Kim's statement

There was a knock on the door and we were handed too drinks of equal amounts. We did sip the drinks but Precious’ cup fell into the sink.

Hinman's transcription

THERE WAS A KNOCK ON THE DOOR AND WE WERE HANDED TWO DRINKS OF EQUAL AMOUNTS. SHE STATED SHE SIPPED THE DRINKS (RUM AND COKE SHE THINKS) BUT PRECIOUS CUP FELL INTO THE SINK SPILLING THE CONTENTS, SHE THINKS THE VICTIM HAD A COUPLE DRINKS FROM HERS BUT SHE WAS NOT SURE.

Both of these deviations from Kim's written statement may be irrelevant, but they seem to be more suggestive of a theory the cops were postulating. They could also mean that Kim said one thing and wrote another. But I really can't imagine the cops not having her clear up those items, especially after having her do the first revision.