In keeping with the mandate of the prison, I am resuming the upkeep of this journal. The staff, feeling that I have been comparatively inactive in the past, have seen fit to give me "primers" concerning subjects which make for appropriate entries. They have suggested using two prompts per entry
(
Read more... )
Comments 77
Reply
Reply
I guess I'm not all that surprised, really--that you'd do something like that, and then boast about it.
Reply
I assume you have some interest in the law?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I did it because I could. That is all.
Reply
Reply
Reply
But you're right. The chances were not high, but with the proper attorney, and a good prosecutor on the case--by which I mean, not you--it's quite likely the truth of the matter could have been uncovered, and two years of misdeeds stopped before they began.
Reply
That was your case, just as State vs. Edgeworth was mine. If you had done your job, getting your sister convicted would have been a matter of course. But you didn't. Instead you managed to fail spectacularly, giving Damon Gant the power that ended up sending many more "innocents" to prison than would have happened otherwise.
I admit to my curiosity: what is it like, knowing that your selfishness gave power to the man responsible for the convictions of so many? Particularly when so many of them would have been "innocent" in any other case.
Reply
Reply
Robert Hammond was a fool, but in no way unusual for a defense attorney. The result would have been the same regardless of the fool who cared to act as my opposition.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Or did you find some way of making the defendant somehow less sympathetic?
Reply
The operative word here is "may", and that is never a factor when a case is handled properly.
Reply
Leave a comment