Why Rich Plesea would have been on the defense witness list, I have no idea.<quoted text>
Next time you take a stroll down memory lane, maybe you'll come across my posts that say I didn't get into the side issues, rumors, and assorted spin put on the case by the media. My focus has always been what's in the docs. Period.
That was the purpose of these threads, then and now.
As to cross-checking what Baez said in opening statements, yes I did do that....am still doing it, trying to find something that doesn't fit with what he said. And I can't. In fact, the more I go back and look at what's in the docs, the more I find to support his opening statement.
If you can find things from the docs, or from what was admitted into the trial, or from any of the rulings, that would /could undermine Baez's opening statement, please post it up.
"the defence theory was presented for the sole purpose of causing reasonable doubt" - if that was true then hats off to that scriptwriter who managed to weave every fact in the case into that scenario because it was a daunting task!
"the prosecution was never allowed to disprove it" - what in the world does this mean?
And no, I don't remember Rick Plesea's emails because I didn't read them because they were not evidence. In fact, I don't recall ever seeing Rick Pleasea on either side's witness list.
The docs that were released formed the State's case against Casey Anthony. Did they have the goods to convict or not, or are you hoping for a reset? LOL