I don’t know. Perhaps a lawyer can chime in. I would think they would keep her somewhat abreast of their efforts and give her some summary at least in preparation for testifying. The IM posts were just wrong enough that they could be a precis of progress filtered through a gotcha no lawyer brain, and communicated to a sockpuppet if IM is not a performance by LK.
“We have hired a very highly qualified psychologist to refute the insanity claim.”
“Can you testify that this transcript of your all to SS is accurate?”
Etc. Once you peel back the initial supercilious tone and all the “facts” and predictions that turned out to not be true, including bombshell, there is not much substance to IM.
Nobody in the prosecutors office would be engaging with us older ladies on an obscure chat group because that risks having the trial jeopardized. Also they have no reason because our opinion is irrelevant to the outcome.
I think IM was trying to perform a version of a supercilious witty lawyer as seen on TV, and started with some grandiose claims to know both sides and be able to speak objectively. But that performance fell apart later on.
It’s hard when someone lies as a matter of course on SM or indeed IRL. Before you know this you will put rather too much energy into talking to them and processing their information. Even after you know it, default mode is still to try to put their various statements into a coherent context.
But as the recent Bob/Rob posts cited above show, at a certain point liars are just twisting in the wind. They will double down on obviously false claims that have been disproven in court. We see this in other sectors of public speech these days, with all kinds of conspiracy theories and misinformation.
