reply to post by Xcathdra
Also directly from my post
"In a letter to the three players just days before they testified against their friends and teammates, DeWine wrote that each player "may not have
conducted himself in a responsible or appropriate manner, his behavior did not rise to the level of any criminal conduct.... Therefore, we will not
prosecute your client for his actions on August 11-12, 2012."
With a letter like that - from the prosecuting attorney - that is just as good if not better than immunity. Immunity has very specific rules, this is
as good as a blessing from a priest!
You and I both know that if there is a case for criminal charges against these witnesses - the first thing on the table will be that letter!!! And it
is huge grounds for appeal if found guilty!
You claim that you are a LEO (but deny that I am also a LEO). When your opinion was asked about conflict of interest on the part of Jane Hanlin, you
merely hemmed and hawed about how the guidelines may be different in different areas. I am sorry but you opinion is worthless. Being involved in an
investigation in which you know the parties and your own son may be called as a witness is a pretty clear example on any conflict of interest
guidelines that I have ever seen.
I didn't hem and haw - I looked up the actual guidelines for prosecutors in OHIO. Did you somehow forget where this incident occurred and such
guidelines are publically available?
As a matter of fact - you pretty much hemmed and hawed through every question you were asked.
Really - are you just a windbag trying to show off your superiority or are you honestly up for debate and discussion.
It appears to me that the case of the "vanishing" immunity is quite unusual. It would be sheer legal incompetence for the lawyer of these juvenile
witnesses to allow them to testify without first having immunity. The letter sent by the Ohio State Attorney's office is also very very unusual.
What appears to have happened here to me, is that when the state attorney realized that the county attorney has participated in the investigation,
issued immunity to witnesses, and chose what charges would be laid and against who, before declaring herself in conflict of interest, the state
attorney went ballistic and tried to withdraw immunity. Of course, its too late for any of that and the letter was sent to reassure the juveniles and
their lawyers and their parents that the witnesses would not be prosecuted after all.
Now - I am going to invite to get off your high horse and have a reasonable debate. But if you are going to continue trying to be my "superior", I
am just going to ignore you from now on.
In my opinion, there is clear evidence of conflict of interest. Sufficient I think for the county prosecutor to be censured and a complaint made to
the Law Society. The only part that Jane Hanlin as a prosecutor didn't do before recusing herself was to stand in front of the judge and show the
Tired of Control Freaks