• AmericaDelendaEst [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    12 hours ago

    but, as everyone keeps saying whenever this comes up, the only reason they’re talking about this is because they were trying to deny him bail and they cited the cash and the bag, which is why he made a statement on those things, but not the other things (which were not being brought up to deny him bail)

    • hotspur@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Yeah that’s a valid point re: their argument to deny bail, forgot about that. And that would also be plausible for why they would plant stuff when they already had more damning evidence, they wanted to make sure he wasn’t getting bail.

      • ferristriangle [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Yeah, that’s the idea. This hearing was not the murder trial, so evidence pertaining to guilt or innocence is unlikely to have been discussed since it was not relevant to the matter at hand.

        Which, as you said, means we have to wait for the trial to know anything conclusively. But the fact that he only disputed the cash does not necessarily mean he is admitting to the rest of it.