Recent comments in /f/rva

fusion260 OP t1_jd34z3v wrote

>But there is also no reason to release it before the trial.

We hear certain politicians and lawmakers try this all the time: "We need to be patient! We need to let the slow wheels of justice turn slowly so we slowly get to our destination in a slow manner so when we slowly arrive, people will have forgotten how unnecessarily long the slow journey went slowly and have moved on to other things."

Defendants file appeal after appeal, push the trial out (potentially for years), in the hopes that the plaintiff or witnesses are no longer available or willing to testify or see a judgement in their favor, or that something else will happen that will cause the trial to be canceled, or that the statute of limitations will expire, or that some law would be written that might exonerate them or prevent them from being tried in court.

Look at how much time out of court a former president has gotten with all of the pending litigation against them, by filing counter lawsuits and appeals, and simultaneously getting an incredible amount of time to sow distrust in the very system they, themselves, are committed to abusing and disrupting.

You posted this from a throwaway account, so I get the feeling that you're not here for a good faith discussion. If you were, you would have used your main account.

13

fusion260 OP t1_jd333az wrote

I can't see how releasing this video would risk a mistrial. That ship sailed years ago. Taxpayers pay for their public law enforcement, so they have a right to see what that public law enforcement does.

Videos like this—especially partially-redacted videos (this doesn't have sound)—are released more and more (in recent memory) by law enforcement, either voluntarily or via court order, before any trial takes place and those trials don't end in mistrials.

There is zero reason to keep this video from the public out of concern for a "fair trial."

What would meet my corruption scratch-and-sniff test is if the prosecutor also moved to have the video sealed from the public until it's played during the trial as part of their evidence. That would cause people to reasonably doubt which side the prosecutor is on.

21

aRVAthrowawayy t1_jd31yen wrote

Dropbox links can be set by the owner to allow anyone with the link to view or only allow specific people. I guess it depends on the document; if intended for the jury then the prosecution wouldn’t have all their email addresses to set permissions.

Local news reporting now so point is sort of moot from my civilian perspective. Still, if this is declared a mistrial despite the glaring issues the video shows, it’s gonna be a new can of worms.

−16

fusion260 OP t1_jd31kyn wrote

The links were listed in a public court filing. It's not like they were sent by Baskervill (the prosecutor) via an encrypted Telegram message from a burner phone bought by someone in another country and sent to Baskervill via courier pigeon.

Journalists did their job by constantly checking the sources they had without dealing directly with the prosecutor. Looks like NYT was sleeping on this and WaPo made the break.

10

aRVAthrowawayy t1_jd30c77 wrote

Well isn’t that scummy and corrupt, the video speaks for itself. There was obviously zero need for it to be leaked. Looks like the prosecution is allowing activism to take priority over due process. It’s like they want a mistrial.

Wonder if WAPO is in the habit of just snooping at random Dropbox links. I bet they were tipped off. Unbelievable that this got to National news before our own local.

Edit: I’m not mad the video got leaked, I’m mad about how it happened.

−43

mallydobb t1_jd2zmv0 wrote

WaPo went through court documents and found relevant links. The prosecution did not release the video but apparently found a way to ensure the public could find out how in the way court documents were filed. Creative.

I watched the video and part of what stuck out was the number of people that showed up to watch. The whole boondoggle was unprofessional and a huge CF. Aside from emergency people called in to resuscitate everyone in that room, participating or observing, should be charged. The idiot papers over the body and staff doing CPR was doing nothing to help as well. This video shows a reality that staff in that location are unprepared and untrained…among other things.

29