2 ms·

Do I think he might be guilty, yes. But when they charge him with 45 felonies and then he pleads guilty to 1 misdemeanor then I do wonder. Do some prosecutors

by bruceb 13y ago

Do I think he might be guilty, yes. But when they charge him with 45 felonies and then he pleads guilty to 1 misdemeanor then I do wonder. Do some prosecutors exaggerate, lie, and withhold evidence? Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Morton_%28criminal_justice%29#Arrest_and_imprisonment_of_prosecutor_Ken_Anderson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Morton_%28criminal_just... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Mignini#Allegations_of_abuse_of_office http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Mignini#Allegations_of...

ceejayoz 13y ago
The main bit of evidence, the surveillance tape, was thrown out because they seized it without warrant (out of concern it'd be destroyed while waiting for one). That's why the felonies went away.
- NAFV_P 13y ago
  > The main bit of evidence, the surveillance tape, was thrown out because they seized it without warrant (out of concern it'd be destroyed while waiting for one). I also think that is the main point in this story, along with the sentence in the article that follows shortly after: "It is also reported that Kakish declined to press charges." A quote from the article in the first link states: > "But perhaps the biggest blow came when Judge Brendan Conroy ruled that surveillance video from Chahal's bedroom - which reportedly captured the 1 1/2-hour attack - had been seized unlawfully by police. The cops claim they took the video without waiting for a warrant because they feared it might get erased, but the judge didn't buy it." The linked article also suggests that Julia Kakish might have been paid off, neither Chahal's or Kakish's lawyers are saying anything regarding this issue. The video evidence was thrown out because the judge said it was obtained unlawfully, but does this question the video's authenticity? I don't think it does.

by bruceb 13y ago

ceejayoz 13y ago

The main bit of evidence, the surveillance tape, was thrown out because they seized it without warrant (out of concern it'd be destroyed while waiting for one). That's why the felonies went away.

NAFV_P 13y ago
> The main bit of evidence, the surveillance tape, was thrown out because they seized it without warrant (out of concern it'd be destroyed while waiting for one). I also think that is the main point in this story, along with the sentence in the article that follows shortly after: "It is also reported that Kakish declined to press charges." A quote from the article in the first link states: > "But perhaps the biggest blow came when Judge Brendan Conroy ruled that surveillance video from Chahal's bedroom - which reportedly captured the 1 1/2-hour attack - had been seized unlawfully by police. The cops claim they took the video without waiting for a warrant because they feared it might get erased, but the judge didn't buy it." The linked article also suggests that Julia Kakish might have been paid off, neither Chahal's or Kakish's lawyers are saying anything regarding this issue. The video evidence was thrown out because the judge said it was obtained unlawfully, but does this question the video's authenticity? I don't think it does.