That the prosecutors presented a good case, against KK, BK & BF?
While there may not have been the so called "Smoking Gun" what about all the text messages, phone & wire taps? What about the witness' that testified?
Sure, some may argue that most of the witnesses are lairs & thieves, which is very true. Just like the people on trial, no?
At the same time, 70+ witnesses and an approximation of 18(+) people thus far have plead guilty/taken a plea, in one fashion or another. They have either served their time, paid fees, were/on probation or are awaiting sentencing.
So I ask you....could this trial be "guilty by association" as the defense would suggest?
3 comments:
I do not believe anything the defense suggested. It seems the ones who knew the inner workings the most were also criminal themselves thru their own actions. I think being guilty by association is just fluff...that would be like saying because i knew KK,BF and BK that i am a criminal which i am not. Each person has their own moral compass and you can either be true to it or swerve off course and deal with the consequences....just ask EB,DM or CK...they all got themselves mixed up in this thru their own actions!!
Guilty by association...I THINK NOT..
I felt the prosecution's case, while not a slam dunk by any means, was pretty thorough and methodical. Seemed to follow the pattern of 2-3 witnesses who corroborate each other's stories, followed by a Federal agent who showed texts, documents or other evidence that was tied to what the witnesses were saying. They also took time to cover each and every element of each count. No smoking gun, as you've said, but in the he said/she said game, I think there were enough people on the Feds side...all saying the same thing. -- Matt Shelton
I think the prosecution delivered a solid case on most of the counts. I don’t think the defense did enough on cross to disprove or discredit the evidence and witnesses. The defense tried to label all the witnesses as liars, but there were so many witnesses that said the same thing. One would have to think that was the way the city government operated under those three. Even if some of the contract details were confusing for the jury and even if the jury bought some of the arguments by the defense, I would think at the very least he should be convicted of abusing the funds. I believe it was clear that he used those funds as his personal bank account. I also believe; however, that this will end just like Ferguson’s other trial. There will be at least one holdout juror.
Post a Comment