|
In response to
"why does he deserve one? -- nm"
by
Reagen
|
I'm convinced he was wrongfully convicted on the charges that were laid against him.
|
The evidence was too heavily reliant on the testimony of Radler, who was already proven to a) have motive to make Conrad the scapegoat, and b) was already proven to be deceptive on dealings with Conrad and the rest of the board.
The more I read on the case, the more I think he was convicted because he is smug and because he refused to accept responsiblity for crimes he didn't believe he committed. (Though the tape of him removing boxes looked terrible. That said, he maintains - and I know some people who know him personally and believe him - that they were nothing but personal documents and effect.)
Finally, the sentence doesn't feel right all things considered and could be shortened. He's served almost a year. At the very least, a commute of the remaining or a shortening wouldn't have been inappropriate.
|