Nathan Wade's attorney addressed the media outside the courthouse, shedding light on key aspects of the case. The attorney emphasized that Nathan Wade had been in the area before the alleged events took place, even before the other party involved had moved there. This timeline suggests that Wade's presence in the area was not solely linked to the other individual, as he had prior reasons for being there.
The attorney disputed claims that Wade was solely there to see the other party, pointing out that there were instances when she was not present in the area at all. The comparison of cell phone records from before and after the other party's relocation indicated that Wade had a consistent presence in the area for various reasons beyond the relationship in question.
Regarding the cell phone data showing overnight stays in the area, the attorney expressed uncertainty and hinted at potential challenges to the validity of this information. Citing foundational issues and the lack of supporting testimony, the attorney suggested that the data might not hold up in court.
When asked about the next steps in the case, the attorney acknowledged the complexity of the situation and the need for further deliberation. While considering potential challenges to the presented data, the attorney hinted at a strategic approach that takes into account the legal nuances of the case.
