LJP said in blue:
(Fixed both posts - Mal)LetJusticePrevail wrote:
I disagree with the Theory of Dueling DD's, and have always considered it to be a "rabbit hole" that has distracted the discussion about Witness 8. I believe there is one, and only one DD, and that all sorts of "Red Herrings" have been tossed out to keep the media and public away from her, and away from the truth about how and when she first communicated with Tracy, Sybrina, and Ben Crump.
Was she at the wake or funeral? Who knows? I won't believe she was there (or NOT there) until I see PROOF of either alternative. A picture of her at the service, a signature on a registry, or solid documentation that she was NOT there because her whereabouts can be documented at a different location during the times of either the wake AND the funeral. Where does the controversy about her attendance spring from? It comes from the deceivers, Sybrina, Crump, and DD said she was NOT there, but a FAMILY member said she WAS there. BOTH are from the same source as far as I see, and it is a MANUFACTURED CONTROVERSY designed to distract and confuse!
The distraction is intended to draw attention away from something they fear WILL be discovered, which means it is something that CAN be discovered. Quite simply, somewhere along the line they made a MISTAKE that will allow someone to uncover the fact that DD was already in communication with the family PRIOR to 3/18. And I believe the answer lies in her PHONE RECORDS. And I am NOT talking about her CELL, I am talking about her HOME phone. I believe that either DD called Sybrina, Tracy, or Crump from her HOME phone, or one of them accidentally called HER at the home number by mistake, and they fear that her home phone records will reveal that call. This explains TWO things: Why Crump would NOT call her home number when he had audio problems on 3/19, and WHY they have resisted providing her address to the defense. Once that home phone number is revealed, the records will show that SOMEONE called that number, or was called FROM that number LONG BEFORE 3/18. Maybe even before 3/2.
Is it rabbit hole or quest for the truth? Time will determine that. Outside of one vs two DDs, I agree with pretty much everything you said in your reply. Matt said she was 16 on the air, so what does that mean? He KNEW her age and knows it today? We KNOW the DD2 of today is 19. Doesn't that make him and ABC liable civility for promoting a material lie in a murder trial? It seems that the ice is pretty thin there. It seems that they are damned no matter what they do now. Did they lie and help promote a lie about a material fact in a murder investigation by saying an 18 year old is 16? OR did they interview a 16 year and once it was revealed that she was 18 do they have an obligation to say that they may have interviewed a different DD? Personally, I think they are in a tough spot and need to come clean before more damage is done. At least they should set the record straight about the confusion surrounding her age.
On a side note, you and dark (lovemygirl) are doing a commendable job at Huff and Post. I follow you guys, but they just wear me out. It's hard to discuss facts with people who adamantly believe that the lies they heard and then tell is the truth. If there ever is a bronze star to give, you guys deserve one!
Login
FAQ
Do not go gentle into that good night.
HELLO RT AND RUMPOLE!
