[MizSterious]

I guess, Illbay, we're just wondering how you came to your conclusions, based on what is now known. If the man was not able to kill her and dump her body at Dehesa because he was under constant surveillance, how can you logically conclude that he did it? And why not one of the van Dam horndogs, some of whom seem to be very strange? Are you saying DW did it just because, to you, he "looks like" someone who might do such a thing? Uh oh, middle aged, balding men--look out, Illbay thinks you're pervs!

[Illbay]

It would be one thing if they were trying to come up with evidence to indict. They are in a TRIAL, though, do you understand that?

Your opinions and mine don't make one bit of difference. If it is as you say, and the defense can convince the jury of that, then it is significant.

If not, it sounds like one more example of the "straining at gnats" that seems to be the primary hobby of many of the people on threads like this.

[shezza]

Just a little reminder for everyone:

Supreme Court of the United States (a.k.a. "the law of the land")
1984 California v. Trombetta

But criminal defendants are entitled to much more than protection against perjury. A defendant has a constitutionally protected privilege to request and obtain from the prosecution evidence that is either material to the guilt of the defendant or relevant to the punishment to be imposed. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S., at 87. Even in the absence of a specific request, the prosecution has a constitutional duty to turn over exculpatory evidence that would raise a reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S., at 112.

"Jeff, Jeff Dusek? Please pick up the white courtesy phone."