It's very clear what you thought. You stated that they were trying to call in political favors to put him on trial, and put him in jail.
Well, to be perfectly accurate, that's what Miller has said.
They were talking about an extremely normal process that happens at every trial. I.e. Jail is not involved.
I understand that. My point is they were hoping to get a conviction so they could use it against him in court if he were called to testify. You talked earlier about the importance of keeping innocent people out of prison. Well?
Wild accusations, very faulty information used to make them. You are sensationalizing something that didn't happen.
Which part didn't happen?
It doesn't matter how long you've been at this.
Experience, WOL. A lot of people around here appreciate me for that.
So now you've taken them talking about a technique taught in every law school anywhere, and used in thousands of courts everyday by virtually all lawyers... and transformed it into them "dirtying him up" themselves? I suppose you mean by finding dirt on him?
Not exactly. They couldn't FIND dirt on him, so they tried to make some.
Whoever is asking the question here, is accusing him of what you are accusing him of. When he says "Go check him out," he's talking about personally, to find "dirt".
I figured that. The person asking the question is Miller's lawyer. And he had already cross-examined Lee Foreman who said that they were "eager" to see Miller prosecuted. So yes, context is important.
The PI corrects him. He essentially says "No, that was not the purpose. The purpose was to develop information to be used in impeachment."
I.e. information that was relevant to the case and that could be used to impeach him during cross examination. Not information on him personally or to ruin his personal credibility.
You're not seeing the bigger picture. The PIs were just part of the effort. When they couldn't find anything, Haddon turned to other means.
I don't care about your post count or how long you've been here. You've made huge mistakes in your interpretation and perception of what happened.
Excuse me, but have you read the trial transcript? Are you aware of the plea bargain they tried to give this man or what the terms of it were? Or how the case went from "nothing here" to "gung ho?"
What are you making a big deal about? Nobody with any reasonable amount of knowledge of how criminal cases work would ever believe that private investigators would find the killers.
The big deal is that I don't think they were hoping that people with knowledge of criminal cases would believe it, but rather regular people like myself.
Not only that, but without having seen the statements you are talking about, I can only assume you've made wild conclusions on faulty assumptions like you did previously.
Ask around, WOL. I'm not known for doing either.
You do need some experience with the law to look at documents that use legal terminology that you don't understand and draw conclusions from them.
I understand the difference between honest and dishonest. It's served me well up to now.