[leilani]

I'm sorry, I cannot bare to wade through the many uploading pages of this thread, but I have 1 single question to ask of all the "former federal prosecutors turned 'commentators' currently plying thir schtick on our local news/court outlets: why is it OK to demand that the police check out all of the people who have had any access at all to the Smart household (i.e.,handymen, real estate folks, milkmen, you name it), but it's NOT OK to tell the VanDam jury about all the strangers of shockingly questionable credentials that this nutty couple trolled for at sleazy bars in the middle of the night & invited into their home for group sex? What's the difference? (Warning: if I ever see that repulsive freak Nancy Grace again, I'm not responsible for the damage I do to this thread.)

[leilani]

Oops. "I cannot bare?" Yeah, well that too. Actually, I cannot bear much of anything about cable FFP commentators who are inconsistent about their "legal" opinions.

[cyncooper]

why is it OK to demand that the police check out all of the people who have had any access at all to the Smart household (i.e.,handymen, real estate folks, milkmen, you name it), but it's NOT OK to tell the VanDam jury about all the strangers of shockingly questionable credentials that this nutty couple trolled for at sleazy bars in the middle of the night & invited into their home for group sex? What's the difference

Because if someone is ever arrested in the Smart case and that person goes to a trial by jury, the evidence against the defendent will be presented and not the whole investigation of who they looked at and disgarded as suspects.