4 ms·
As for "murder for hire": he was never charged with it. Why?! Why on earth prosecutors have chosen not to throw a book on a guy? Because it never happened. Whol
by exo762 12y ago
As for "murder for hire": he was never charged with it. Why?! Why on earth prosecutors have chosen not to throw a book on a guy? Because it never happened. Whole "murder for hire" story is just a part of smear campaign.
- tomp 12y agoWell, the other possibility is that there isn't enough proof. But IMO if there isn't enough proof, he's not guilty, and they shouldn't even mention it, to avoid damaging his public perception.
- ubernostrum 12y agoThe counterpoint to what you say is that the evidence comes from personal documents/conversations/etc. they obtained, and if they released some of that but not all -- in order to avoid publicly releasing any murder-for-hire bits -- you would be here saying that the selective release is suspicious and that they should release everything in order to avoid damaging his reputation through cherry-picking evidence.
- canjobear 12y agoDid you read the indictment? Do you think they just blatantly made up the dialogues and diary entries there? It seems unlikely they would risk doing that just to spice up what already seems like an open-and-shut case.