10. Why were details of time, distance and other verifiable information left out of Kelly's story?
Answer: First, that information or lack thereof makes no difference to the veracity of her testimony. Kelly did not know the time; she didn’t wear a watch. She didn’t know the distances traveled; she was in an unfamiliar area, and a passenger in the car, and she had just witnessed the murder of a friend of hers; perception of peripheral details can be garbled in such circumstances.Second, Byron Case had already provided such information in his own testimony. Kelly’s testimony of their travels matched Case’s right up to the point where they entered Lincoln Cemetery.
Finally, and importantly, and contrary to the assertions of Case and his supporters, Kelly Moffett provided detail in her testimony and description of Anastasia’s murder that could only have come from being an eyewitness to the event. This was enough verifiable information to help sustain her veracity as a witness. The specific spot and direction that Anastasia fell was never given in any news story, and Kelly's description of the shooting itself was extremely consistent with the position the body was discovered, as well as the forensic evidence. Again, and contrary to Case's assertions, such specific information as this was NEVER revealed in any newspaper or televised report. We have listed all available news reports on our web site, and have challenged him and his supporters to point out such a specific reference; to date, they have made no such effort.
Case's supporters quote an appellate court in finally admitting that Case was convicted by eyewitness testimony AND his tacit admission, but insist that this is all that was used. We spoke with two jurors after the trial was done, and they informed us that it was a combination of believable eyewitness testimony, Case's own tacit admission, the forensic evidence that put Case's alibi in doubt, and the general perception of unreliability of the defense witnesses, including Case himself. The appellate court did not get to talk with jurors, and can be excused if they glossed over a few details.
Case apologists have lept upon Kelly's general ignorance of weaponry to try to prove that she concocted her story. They are reaching here. When you are surprised by a sudden act of violence, details like the make of the weapon (especially if you are unfamiliar with firearms to begin with) is not unusual.
This question is irrelevant to the case. Case and his apologists have exaggerated its relevance and importance, but it remains irrelevant. If they really believe it to be so important, why has the argument not been used in any of Case's appeals?
Sources: Tesimony of Kelly Moffett and Byron Case, State v. Byron Case