Maikai, I'm not sure if I'm missing your point or not, but it would seem to me that a question asked and answered days following the incident, then again 14 months later, and again another 14 months later would bear little fruit when being asked another 24 months later. I agree the questions revolved around significant elements of the crime scene, but its the unreasonable expectation that the memory of the victims will have improved. So, taking that conclusion into consideration, what exactly was the purpose of re-asking those same questions again and again? More significantly, why focus the entire interview on questions - asked and answered more than once - when the agreed upon purpose of the meeting was to SHARE/exchange information learned over the 3.5 years?

Dave, you have raised an excellent point. I noticed what appeared to be 'legal' posturing as well. All I can say is I am glad, for the Ramseys sake, that Lin was there to keep these jackals at bay.