I am still waiting for evidence of an agreement between the prosecution and defense concerning DNA evidence. I have never heard of such a thing in any other trial.
A trial runs in sequence Chris. Funding I understand is limited. Which explains why the aim is to get what they want first and foremost, before the limit is reached, funding runs out. No one can expect anything else, it's not their money being used.
But let's apply no limit to the funds. The logical application would have been to acquire testimony, day by day in sequence. Lay it out exactly as had taken place. Because that is what the case was put together with. In doing so, and, 'if' everything was able to be acquired, it would mean certain things were not missed, such as that agreement.
In the meantime it is a fishing expedition. Messy to boot. But how does one source that agreement? You would have to know which day, what it was in line with, where it came in respect of any evidence heard from a witness. The person being asked, would find it pretty difficult to source something of a recording, labelled agreement? I'm not entirely sure that is how it works? SM is a good example of this.
IB, that messy application, carefully manipulated? Where it tells you that LM and his mother learnt of an agreement, she then prattles on about it making no sense. The application of 'if they had all of that DNA evidence, surely they would have used it?' Where you do similar here, ludicrous notion inference, never heard of, agreeing not to use DNA evidence. But, if that DNA Chris is not evidence of a crime, only of existence, it changes meaning entirely.
We can revisit this, once every minute of every day of that trial is put out publicly.
