On Apr 13, 12:59=A0am, t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(tjab) wrote:
> In article <frbj5e$gm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, TNKev =A0<TNKev...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
w=
rote:
> >Greegor wrote:
> >[...]
> >> Betty brought it up.
> >> She suggested you were framed by the teenager.
>
> >I didn't assume that was what she was saying at all,it appeared to me
> >she was suggesting you either were to stupid to understand what you
were
> >reading or you didn't read the summary you always post.
>
> >here is what she said, copy and pasted from the original post.
>
> >And yet from the summary that you posted yourself the juvenile was
found =
by
> >the police alone, and was the only person in possession of stolen
items..=
..
> >Oh yeah...and wel all keep diamond rings in our cars too. =A0Wonder if
th=
eir
> >insurance company believed that one.
>
> >end C&P
>
> >I don't see any suggestion Kent was framed.
>
> >maybe you should read the summary again from a different perspective if
> >possible,or have an unbiased person read it.
>
> >It just doesn't make sense that the kid had the items that were stolen
> >and the adult was arrested and went to trial for 3rd degree burglary.
tjab > And yet notwithstanding the fact that it
tjab > doesn't make sense to you, Kent Bradley
tjab > Wills was convicted by a jury of his peers.
tjab > Doesn't it just make you weep?
1. Property was all in kid's posession (questionable)
2. Ring missing from inside car (questionable)
3. Kent's explanation of why he was in the area (mystery)
Why weren't these arguments used in the appeal to the Iowa Supreme
Court?
Why appeal using the lame argument that he had inadequate
representation because the attorney would not
argue that an attached garage is not part of a residence?
This would not have been half as much fun if Kent
had just acknowledged this Felony record.
Kent's raging denial and the enlisted stooges make it much more fun!
|
