kooky belle

Anonymous said...
Do you also hold red roses in your mouth and strum a guitar?

Sorry to break the mood, but there could be three reasons for 'your keeshelle' not fronting with the report, she so adamantly proclaimed to have.
Firstly, because the information in the report doesn't give details of previous childbirth, or, secondly, the report does contain that information, and it's contrary to what was stated by Kookybelle. Thirdy, she lied, and she doesn't have the report at all. 1, 2 or 3? I think it's pretty obvious!

Sorry, GNG is not available having decided to have the red roses for morning tea and now suffering from indigestion and spitting out thorns. He'll come right I'm sure. Look at all the tacks spat out by the sisters, enough to keep a steel mill running for six months at full production.

I think your inferences and conclusions are correct. They could go further in my opinion as to being unable to show that Laniet had never been pregnant. Of course the Crown would have made a meal out of such evidence from the pathologists to firstly refute the testimony of some mature witnesses who believe (and gave under oath) that they saw what they took to be pregnancy stretch marks on Laniet. Any such evidence would have been exploited to the maximum by The Crown to weaken or destroy the motive that the Defence claimed as being a reason for the murders and his own suicide.

But if kookybelle didn't lie, there is nothing stopping her presenting the material now. I think, as with such things, it would be important information although not able as such, to undermine the forensic evidence that Robin shot himself.