Spitzer and Wall Street--overzealous?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
unfair to Wall Street. That is, he supposedly prosecuted cases where
people were innocent or prosecuted cases where there was no law at all
involved. Or he prosecuted the equivalent of accusing someone going
60 mph in a 55 zone of felony reckless endangerment.
Is there any justification to these charges against Spitzer? Was he
overzealous? Did he hurt truly innocent people?
Obveeus
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:0063bed5-a674-4965...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
I think the real issue is that he went after people for crimes that many on
Wall Street felt 'everyone' was committing.
Imagine if everyone is driving along at 80MPH in a 55 MPH zone and you get
pulled over for a ticket. It costs you $250 and 2 points off your license
and you know darn well that all the traffic around you was going the same
speed as you were. You feel like you have been wronged or that there was
selective enforcement of the law even though you know full well that you
were guilty of the traffic violation. The thing is, the cop that pulled you
over for speeding can only pull over so many speeders in a day. So, the
most visible speeders (the guy driving the red Lamborghini) and the most
unlucky speeders (the first car to go by right after the officer gets back
into position to hand out the next ticket) are pulled over and everyone else
slows down (maybe for a moment) as they pass by, unabated.
Dano
I'm sure all who were prosecuted by him are delighted. Can't say I don't
agree with those that were prosecuted for the same *crimes* he was
committing at the same time. It's the hypocrisy that stinks.
Obveeus
"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm sure all who were prosecuted by him are delighted. Can't say I don't
> agree with those that were prosecuted for the same *crimes* he was
> committing at the same time. It's the hypocrisy that stinks.
Have there been any real numbers released on this? Exactly how many people
were prosecuted as 'Johns' under his watch as attorney Genneral. Better
yet, what percentage of procecutions under his watch were for
solicitation...and how many of those cases was he actually 'personally
involved with procecuting'? I bet the number is very, very
low...approaching zero. His 'vendettas' against Wall Street crime had
nothing to do with 'sex crimes' and everything to do with trying to stop
Wall Street 'big wigs' from financially bilking their clients and the tax
payers.
Dano
Oh...I'm not disputing that at all. Just because he may have done his job
properly (IMO) and with zeal, doesn't excuse his hypocrisy. Are you saying
he never prosecuted anyone for the same offense he committed? Because that
is *not* what I understand to be true. If I'm mistaken, please do correct
me.
He seemed to show little mercy...in the case of the white collar criminals
he went after...I have no problem. Helll...I have no problem with any of
his legitimate prosecutions. I'm just disgusted by his own personal
hypocrisy...that's all. It's his turn to pay the piper.
Obveeus
"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:boydnRN6ncT1rUDa...@comcast.com...
> Obveeus wrote:
>> "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I'm sure all who were prosecuted by him are delighted. Can't say I
>>> don't agree with those that were prosecuted for the same *crimes* he
>>> was committing at the same time. It's the hypocrisy that stinks.
>>
>> Have there been any real numbers released on this? Exactly how many
>> people were prosecuted as 'Johns' under his watch as attorney
>> Genneral. Better yet, what percentage of procecutions under his
>> watch were for solicitation...and how many of those cases was he
>> actually 'personally involved with procecuting'? I bet the number is
>> very, very low...approaching zero. His 'vendettas' against Wall
>> Street crime had nothing to do with 'sex crimes' and everything to do
>> with trying to stop Wall Street 'big wigs' from financially bilking
>> their clients and the tax payers.
>
> Oh...I'm not disputing that at all. Just because he may have done his job
> properly (IMO) and with zeal, doesn't excuse his hypocrisy. Are you
> saying he never prosecuted anyone for the same offense he committed?
As the 'State Attorney General', I suppose you could make the claim that he
prosecuted every single person in the state over that time period. However,
if you want to just talk about cases where he was actually the prosecutor, I
think that it is very likely that he never has prosecuted someone for
solicitation. He was never an entry level employee for the state, so it
seems unlikely that he would be dinking with 'petty crime' prosecution
personally. Certainly, he wasn't prosecuting people for 'Federal crimes'
(and calling this a Federal crime because a prostitute was hired across
state lines is a total joke that should/would likely cause the law to be
rewritten if an attempt to procecute was actually made) since he worked for
the state.
Does that negate the 'hipocrisy' of all this? Certainly not. A person in
his job should most definitely not be breaking laws...and especially not
laws that public opinion frowns so highly upon breaking. I actually think
breaking this law as Attorney General is more aggregious than breaking it as
Governor, but either way it represents bad faith on his part towards the job
positions he was upholding.
> Because that is *not* what I understand to be true. If I'm mistaken,
> please do correct me.
This is why I asked the question. People are claiming he prosecuted people
for the same stuff and I am wondering if that is actually true or just one
of those silly assumptions tossed out for dramatic effect. Has anyone seen
a list of how many (or even an example of one) solicitation cases he
prosecuted?
Dano
Here ya go...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E1D91438F93BA35757C0A9629C8B63
''This was a sophisticated and lucrative operation with a multitiered
management structure,'' the state attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, who
oversees the task force, said in a statement. ''It was, however, nothing
more than a prostitution ring, and now its owners and operators will be held
accountable.''
Dano
To take another whack at what *should* be a dead horse...
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/a-2004-prostitution-case-viewed-in-a-new-light/
Can we put this defense of yours (and others) to rest finally?
Obveeus
"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Obveeus wrote:
>> As the 'State Attorney General', I suppose you could make the claim
>> that he prosecuted every single person in the state over that time
>> period. However, if you want to just talk about cases where he was
>> actually the prosecutor, I think that it is very likely that he never
>> has prosecuted someone for solicitation.
>> This is why I asked the question. People are claiming he prosecuted
>> people for the same stuff and I am wondering if that is actually true
>> or just one of those silly assumptions tossed out for dramatic
>> effect. Has anyone seen a list of how many (or even an example of
>> one) solicitation cases he prosecuted?
>
> Here ya go...
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E1D91438F93BA35757C0A9629C8B63
Perhaps you didn't understand what was being asked. Notice that this falls
under the category of 'everything that happens in the state while he is
Attorney General can be claimed as him prosecuting the case' as I stated
above. He doesn't appear to be the actual prosecutor and, for that matter,
this doesn't appear to be an example of the prosecutors going after 'Johns'
at all. Instead, they were going after a 'crime family' (MOB) and stumbled
upon the prostitution ring. The prostitution ring members were prosecuted,
but the article you reference doesn't suggest that any of the 'Johns' were
prosecuted. So, back to the question: how many people did Spitzer actually
prosecute for doing what he did?
Obveeus
"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Obveeus wrote:
>> This is why I asked the question. People are claiming he prosecuted
>> people for the same stuff and I am wondering if that is actually true
>> or just one of those silly assumptions tossed out for dramatic
>> effect. Has anyone seen a list of how many (or even an example of
>> one) solicitation cases he prosecuted?
>
> To take another whack at what *should* be a dead horse...
>
> http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/a-2004-prostitution-case-viewed-in-a-new-light/
>
> Can we put this defense of yours (and others) to rest finally?
Do you honestly think that providing two links to the same case somehow
bolsters your argument? The case you keep citing is not one where people
are prosecuted for soliciting a prostitute, so it really doesn't apply to
the question I asked. Moreover, it isn't a case where the 'investigation'
was even about prostitution. It is a Mob case where the easiest path
towards conviction became to charge the people involved with running a
prostitution ring. This goes back to the point I made earlier about the
$10K limit on bank movements is really about *tax* laws. They may have
strong indications of 'bigger' lawbreaking events, but it is the tax
prosecution (or threats of tax prosecution) that most often bring about the
eventual convictions.
Dano
You asked for an example. You have it. A very high profile case, that he
happily took credit for...standing front and center in that case. Did you
even bother to read the accounts? You are just embaressing yourself. He
has yet to even be charged...yet. He chose to pursue that case...*even
while engaging in the same criminal activity himself*. Is he not supporting
a criminal venture by spending a truly obscene amount of money on the
prostitutes he was prosecuting at the same time?
You are trying to have it both ways. I'm not familiar with the NY political
war between Spitzer and Republicans like Bruno, but a cursory search
revealed that Spitzer was using very questionable means against his arch
opponent ...and even apologized for it (while blaming his subordinates of
course). So please spare us the sanctimonious railing against dirty pool in
*this* case. Both sides have filthy hands over this. A pox on all of them.
Spitzer did a grave diservice to his own (often laudatory) agenda by his
actions. Glass houses and all that. Shame on him.
BTW...I'm a registered Democrat and stiil support Obama...so don't think my
words are motivated by party affiliation. I doubt seriously you can say the
same.
Try actually *reading* these links this time...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/opinion/16opclassic.html
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jK7JN30OZBXkVgn6qkcqzZ-uUkLQD8VBFGQO2
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1332341220080313
Mason Barge
> unfair to Wall Street. That is, he supposedly prosecuted cases where
> people were innocent or prosecuted cases where there was no law at all
> involved.
Prosecutors sometimes must prosecute cases where the defendants are found
"not guilty". In fact, if a prosecutor does not prosecute a certain number
of cases where the defendant is acquitted, he is not aggressive enough.
I remember a similar article about appendectomies. Surgeons who never
remove healty appendixes are chided by review boards. The ideal "mistake"
rate -- the percentage of time a surgeon removes an appendix that did not
need removal -- is 25%. If it falls much below that, it means that patients
who need appendectomies do not get them.
> Or he prosecuted the equivalent of accusing someone going
> 60 mph in a 55 zone of felony reckless endangerment.
>
I have strong feelings about this. The degree of cheating by US
corporations is outrageous and epidemic. These prosecutions are not
equivalent to going 60 in a 55 zone. They are more like paying for 55 out
of the 60 items in your grocery cart, or taking someone's wallet with $60
and only stealing $5 of it.
> Is there any justification to these charges against Spitzer? Was he
> overzealous? Did he hurt truly innocent people?
Again, innocent people get hurt by active, aggressive prosecutors. It is a
very unfortunate reality of criminal justice.
Posit an innocent man who is found next to his wife's body with blood on his
hands, his fingerprints on the poker that killed her, and let's say she has
a big life insurance policy. He is going to get hurt by the prosecutors.
There is no other way that they can catch all the people who murder their
spouses.
I personally don't think he was at all "overzealous". He was a much needed
AG who was willing to root out and prosecute corporate felons, who think
they have a right to break securities laws and steal money from the
corporation and stockholders.
Yeah, they scream bloody murder, and the rare innocent defendant who gets
investigated and indicted is a terrible thing. But the ones who scream the
loudest are the ones who don't want to lose their right to break the law and
steal stockholders' money.
Dano
So what makes you think that's in question? The reality is, he broke the
same laws and in doing so supported a very profitable organized criminal
venture in the process...all while prosecuting others who might even be
considered competitors of those he frequented...*at**the**same**time*.
Tough break. He has only himself to blame. He's a big boy.
Obveeus
"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You asked for an example. You have it. A very high profile case, that he
> happily took credit for...standing front and center in that case. Did you
> even bother to read the accounts? You are just embaressing yourself. He
> has yet to even be charged...yet. He chose to pursue that case...*even
> while engaging in the same criminal activity himself*. Is he not
> supporting a criminal venture by spending a truly obscene amount of money
> on the prostitutes he was prosecuting at the same time?
The cases are not at all the same and if you do not know the difference
between prosecuting a 'John' and prosecuting a 'pimp' then you have no
business even attempting to converse on the subject.
> You are trying to have it both ways. I'm not familiar with the NY
> political war between Spitzer and Republicans like Bruno, but a cursory
> search revealed that Spitzer was using very questionable means against his
> arch opponent ...and even apologized for it (while blaming his
> subordinates of course). So please spare us the sanctimonious railing
> against dirty pool in *this* case.
Feel free to continue to snip out my condemnation of what Spitzer did so
that you can claim I was defending his actions. Meanwhile, you continue to
ignore the point that was being made.
Side note: using the police force to tail members of the Republican
administration in the hopes of catching them doing something is very similar
to the behind the scene machinations of bank employees deciding whom they do
and do not want to 'watch closely'. I'm not in favor of wither action and
at no time have I even hinted otherwise so stop trying to misrepresent what
I said.
> BTW...I'm a registered Democrat and stiil support Obama...
Yes, I know...but...so what? What has that got to do with the issues here?
>so don't think my words are motivated by party affiliation. I doubt
>seriously you can say the same.
I can say your partisan silliness has nothing to do with this case. Your
logic attempts here are completely absent.
tricks...@yahoo.com
information has not come out yet and probably never will with the
level of reporting on TV, which makes me feel that he was the prime
target the government was after.
Dano
I doubt very much this is over.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Imagine if everyone is driving along at 80MPH in a 55 MPH zone and you get
> pulled over for a ticket.
Let's look at this a little closer:
1) Was indeed _everyone_ driving at 80 in a 55? Or were some people
driving properly? Were some people going even faster, say 100?
2) Was the punishment relevent to the crime? That is, not a $250
fine, but perhaps a $1,000 fine for speeding?
3) Was the 55 speed limit ridiculously too slow for the highway?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I'm sure all who were prosecuted by him are delighted. Can't say I don't
> agree with those that were prosecuted for the same *crimes* he was
> committing at the same time. It's the hypocrisy that stinks.
The issue in this particular discussion is NOT the hyprocisy. It is
focused on what he did as a prosecutor.
Not all prosecutors act fairly, they have discretion and some abuse
the powers of their office.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Prosecutors sometimes must prosecute cases where the defendants are found
> "not guilty". In fact, if a prosecutor does not prosecute a certain number
> of cases where the defendant is acquitted, he is not aggressive enough.
Where does it say that?
Prosecuting an innocent person is not fair; it is a violation of
everything we believe in. The innocent person loses their reputation
and suffers severe financial loss.
> I remember a similar article about appendectomies.
Apples vs. oranges comparison. Two different things that can't be
compared.
> I have strong feelings about this. The degree of cheating by US
> corporations is outrageous and epidemic.
Exactly what is the "cheating" going on by Wall Street?
> Again, innocent people get hurt by active, aggressive prosecutors. It is a
> very unfortunate reality of criminal justice.
It is also a non-acceptable one. Such prosecutors are supposed to be
removed from office.
> Posit an innocent man who is found next to his wife's body with blood on his
> hands, his fingerprints on the poker that killed her, and let's say she has
> a big life insurance policy. He is going to get hurt by the prosecutors.
> There is no other way that they can catch all the people who murder their
> spouses.
Such a man might be a suspect, but not necessarily prosecuted unless
there is more evidence than that. Plenty of people have life
insurance, and would be perfectly expected for someone to act that way
upon discovery of a body. What you say alone is not enough.
Obveeus
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
On Mar 16, 2:23 pm, "Mason Barge" <masonba...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Prosecutors sometimes must prosecute cases where the defendants are found
>> "not guilty". In fact, if a prosecutor does not prosecute a certain
>> number
>> of cases where the defendant is acquitted, he is not aggressive enough.
>Where does it say that?
>
>Prosecuting an innocent person is not fair; it is a violation of
>everything we believe in. The innocent person loses their reputation
>and suffers severe financial loss.
You seem to think that the prosecutor has some magical ability to *know* if
the person is innocent or guilty despite all of the evidense. A
prosecutor's job is to *not* prosecute if they believe the person is
innocent (with evidence that supports this conclusion), *not* prosecute if
they believe the person will get off even if they are guilty (not waste of
taxpayer money), and to *only* prosecute when they believe the person is
guilty and that they have enough evidense to convince the jury of that
guilt.
>> I have strong feelings about this. The degree of cheating by US
>> corporations is outrageous and epidemic.
>Exactly what is the "cheating" going on by Wall Street?
I'm guessing by the tone of that question that you believe the S&L scandal
was completely about innocent bankers, that the Enron/Charter style scandals
are just about investors mistakenly believing that coorporate heads can't
spend corporate money any way they want, that the current subprime mortgage
crisis is completely about bad luck causing the financial problems, and that
no government oversight of business is ever needed.
>> Posit an innocent man who is found next to his wife's body with blood on
>> his
>> hands, his fingerprints on the poker that killed her, and let's say she
>> has
>> a big life insurance policy. He is going to get hurt by the prosecutors.
>> There is no other way that they can catch all the people who murder their
>> spouses.
>Such a man might be a suspect, but not necessarily prosecuted unless
>there is more evidence than that. Plenty of people have life
>insurance, and would be perfectly expected for someone to act that way
>upon discovery of a body. What you say alone is not enough.
What if there was an eye witness that saw the husband beating his wife to
death? Would that be enough? Your reply suggests that maybe no one should
be prosecuted unless they confess to the crime.
Dano
> On Mar 15, 11:40 pm, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I'm sure all who were prosecuted by him are delighted. Can't say I
>> don't agree with those that were prosecuted for the same *crimes* he
>> was committing at the same time. It's the hypocrisy that stinks.
>
> The issue in this particular discussion is NOT the hyprocisy. It is
> focused on what he did as a prosecutor.
>
He prosecuted at least one case where he was using the services of a
criminal enterprise doing the same thing he was prosecuting another for...at
the same time. I believe that is the very definition of hypocrisy.
> Not all prosecutors act fairly, they have discretion and some abuse
> the powers of their office.
Thank you for that summation of the very obvious. Well done.
Mason Barge
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:953ff35d-742c-48a2...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 16, 2:23 pm, "Mason Barge" <masonba...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Prosecutors sometimes must prosecute cases where the defendants are found
> "not guilty". In fact, if a prosecutor does not prosecute a certain number
> of cases where the defendant is acquitted, he is not aggressive enough.
> Where does it say that?
> Prosecuting an innocent person is not fair; it is a violation of
> everything we believe in. The innocent person loses their
> reputation and suffers severe financial loss.
I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about an
innocent person. You're obviously talking about a person who is not only
innocent, but whom the DA *knows* is innocent.
A DA runs an investigation and decides whether or not to prosecute a
suspect. A grand jury must agree with the DA that there is enough evidence
to take the suspect to trial. The trial jury decides whether the person is
guilty or not.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> You seem to think that the prosecutor has some magical ability to *know* if
> the person is innocent or guilty despite all of the evidense. A
> prosecutor's job is to *not* prosecute if they believe the person is
> innocent (with evidence that supports this conclusion), *not* prosecute if
> they believe the person will get off even if they are guilty (not waste of
> taxpayer money), and to *only* prosecute when they believe the person is
> guilty and that they have enough evidense to convince the jury of that
> guilt.
No magic. The prosecutor's job is as you describe it.
But a prosecutor has discretion and a lot of power. Most people do
not have the money for top notch defense, or even private counsel, and
must make do with often over burdened public defenders.
There have been many prosecutors, along with investigators, who have
ruined families by dubious prosecution. At the end, or perhaps after
an appeal, not-guilty is found, but in the meantime children are
removed and sent to foster care and the family must spend all its
money on defense counsel.
> >Exactly what is the "cheating" going on by Wall Street?
>
> I'm guessing by the tone of that question that you believe the S&L scandal . . .
Your statement is wrong. There is no 'tone' nor nothing to guess.
You stated there is cheating going on by Wall Street and I'm asking
for a description of it, perhaps some examples, and some specifics of
why it was "cheating" as opposed to just an investment gone bad.
It would be more helpful to discuss the cases Spitzer went after. I'm
also curious if anyone feels Spitzer did wrong.
Enron was 'cheating', specifically, misrepresenting fnancial
statements to show a better position than actually existed. Basic
accounting failrue. But that doesn't mean everyone was doing
likewise.
How many companies are listed on the NYSE and OTC? How many other
public companies are out there that aren't publicly traded? Then
there are privately held corporations which don't sell stock, but do
sell bonds. That's many thousands of corporations. Undoubtedly
there's a few seriously bad apples among them, just by the law of
percentages. Are you saying its 1% 50%? 75%?
> What if there was an eye witness that saw the husband beating his wife to
> death?
That wasn't part of the original statement. Your statement was
answered with the facts at hand.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > The issue in this particular discussion is NOT the hyprocisy. It is
> > focused on what he did as a prosecutor.
> He prosecuted at least one case where he was using the services of a
> criminal enterprise doing the same thing he was prosecuting another for...at
> the same time. I believe that is the very definition of hypocrisy.
Please read the first two lines above, and the first post of this
thread.
This discussion is focused solely on his record as a prosecutor and
the cases he prosecuted.
Dano
You might like to think so, but the two are now permanently intertwined,
whether you or the former governor like it or not. He prosecuted the same
crime he was intimately involved with...at the same time. He knew full well
what he was doing.
I really don't know what you are trying to prove with this deliberate
obfuscation of this. It's really quite simple. I suppose you think you're
being clever.
Obveeus
>> You seem to think that the prosecutor has some magical ability to *know*
>> if
>> the person is innocent or guilty despite all of the evidense. A
>> prosecutor's job is to *not* prosecute if they believe the person is
>> innocent (with evidence that supports this conclusion), *not* prosecute
>> if
>> they believe the person will get off even if they are guilty (not waste
>> of
>> taxpayer money), and to *only* prosecute when they believe the person is
>> guilty and that they have enough evidense to convince the jury of that
>> guilt.
>No magic. The prosecutor's job is as you describe it.
If you are intelligent enough to know that the prosecutors have no magic
powers, then why pretend that they have an ability to 'only prosecute guilty
people'? The reality is, the only ability they have is to 'only prosecute
people that they think are guilty'.
>There have been many prosecutors, along with investigators, who have
>ruined families by dubious prosecution. At the end, or perhaps after
>an appeal, not-guilty is found, but in the meantime children are
>removed and sent to foster care and the family must spend all its
>money on defense counsel.
Personal porblems influencing your beliefs?
>> >Exactly what is the "cheating" going on by Wall Street?
>>
>> I'm guessing by the tone of that question that you believe the S&L
>> scandal . . .
>Your statement is wrong. There is no 'tone' nor nothing to guess.
>You stated there is cheating going on by Wall Street and I'm asking
>for a description of it, perhaps some examples, and some specifics of
>why it was "cheating" as opposed to just an investment gone bad.
I didn't make the claim of 'cheating'. As for the rest of your silly
response, look at pretty much any case that has been prosecuted on Wall
Street and it is very clear that there is more than just 'an investment gone
bad' required for such prosecutions. If you really need a specific example,
look at Charter Communications as I already mentioned.
>> What if there was an eye witness that saw the husband beating his wife to
>> death?
>That wasn't part of the original statement. Your statement was
>answered with the facts at hand.
Again, it wasn't my statement. The statment that was made was pretty clear,
though. If a person is standing over a dead body, with motive, no alibi,
and with their fingerprints on the murder weapon, why could you possibly
think that the prosecutor shouldn't file charges against them? The
prosecutor can only go on the business of prosecuting people they believe to
be guilty. they don't *know*.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> If you are intelligent enough to know that the prosecutors have no magic
> powers, then why pretend that they have an ability to 'only prosecute guilty
> people'? The reality is, the only ability they have is to 'only prosecute
> people that they think are guilty'.
Prosecutors (and investigators) have discretion on whom they
prosecute.
Thq question at hand is whether Spitizer abused his discretion as a
prosecutor. People on Wall Street said he did.
Did he do the equivalent of taking away someone's driver's license for
going 26 mph in a 25 zone? His supporters make it seem he went after
those going 75 mph in a 25 zone; while his critics say it was 26 or
even 25.
> Again, it wasn't my statement. The statment that was made was pretty clear,
> though. If a person is standing over a dead body, with motive, no alibi,
> and with their fingerprints on the murder weapon, why could you possibly
> think that the prosecutor shouldn't file charges against them? The
> prosecutor can only go on the business of prosecuting people they believe to
> be guilty. they don't *know*.
Your example is not reflective on reality. Your scenario as
described above ignores the very real possibility someone walked in on
the crime scene and picked up the weapon.
In reality there are _many_ clues that indicate a spouse is a suspect,
far more than those you offer. The point here is that prosecutors and
investigators follow established procedures to evaluate the given
evidence. Questions arise when they _stretch_ established procedures,
or, perhaps fail to consider all possiibilities. Not every murder is
committed by a spouse, even disgruntled ones.
Indeed, there was a real case similar to your description, except it
was the son who discovered the parents' bodies. He had had fights
with them and bragged to his friends about killing them. He was
convicted and imprisoned. His conviction was overturned recently.
Other suspects were not pursued, such as the father's business partner
who owed the father a great deal of money, and had fled the town and
changed his identity after the murder.
In any event, the purpose of this discussion is not to discuss
hypothetical murder cases, but rather the actual Wall Street cases
Spitzer prosecuted (or brought civil action against).
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> You might like to think so, but the two are now permanently intertwined,
> whether you or the former governor like it or not.
Well, that's your opinion.
There have been numerous articles and editorials in the print media
that suggest otherwise, that is, focusing on Spitzer's Wall Street
prosecutions.
That is what this thread is about.
Dano
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:d8752272-bcb4-4ac2...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
-----------------------------------
That's your opinion.