You are exactly right, I came here asking for an explanation from Mr. Lentini because of his comment that was made in the paper. I felt it was made to do nothing more than to push opinion onto the public and future jurors. Especially considering Mr. Lentini's opinion had absolutely nothing to do with the dismissal of the trial. But I guess it sounded really good in paper. Too bad it was at the expense of 3 children. As far as the ruling goes, the information that was given as you say was given to the LEAD investigator, the guy who basically filed the charges, and the guy who already knows everything. It was given to him so he could cross reference what was already told to him by the same witnesses before. You know considering it was a murder trial and he was investigating it. The other person the information was given to was expert witness Dr. Dehaan. The same reasons apply, it was given to him so simply so he could cross reference what the witness said was in the house during the grand jury, and what she said was in the house before to the investigators, you know, trying to be accurate and all. The issue was not really that now the investigation is tainted if those individuals have that information. It's that the Judge says they should have came to the court and asked permission first. According to the prosecutor, he feels it was not something that he needed to go to the court for, since the two people he gave the information to were also grand jury witnesses and sworn to secrecy. He says it was basically a common practice and he has never heard any judge question the matter before.

I feel there is something else to be said, considering with Dehaans testimony, the defense has no case. The only way the accused stood even the slightest chance, based on the mountain of circumstantial evidence surrounding the case giving her motive and putting her at the scene during all the right times, is for Dehaan to dissapear. Now it seems they have done just that, or for the time being. Again I did not post here in order to say that Mr. Lentini had made a decision that decided a case and I disagree with it. I just simply wanted to know who he was, and why he said what he said considering he had nothing to do with the current state of the case. What he said only damaged the image of the case, and if anything will only prove to sway some future juror from listening to the evidence.