“This time, however, she will be confronted with 5 hours of home video and things she could not possibly fail to recall.”
I admit, I am probably the freeper least familiar with this story doug. I have a lot of catching up to do. But I have a question. It sounds like a lot is dependent on the home video being admissable. How certain are you that it will be?
In his response to the latest appellate brief, David Kendall mentioned the problem of taping without approval. The problem for Kendall and Hillary is that she was aware it was on speaker phone. There was no expectation of privacy. All of the other home video is certainly admissable.