|
|
As I said in another post, this is a case where emotions tempt us to fall on one side or the other of the argument immediately, proclaiming "Triple A" guilty or innocent based simply on the few facts that we have. On one hand, his demeanor and history weigh heavily in favor of his innocence, causing all who know him to proclaim how shocked they are that he's even being indicted of such. Unless he is an Academy Award-caliber actor, it's hard to see how he could have been involved in such (and especially starting at such an early age) without giving at least some indications. On the other hand, as Mr. Strickland said, a nine year investigation usually does not produce off-handed accusations. There must be some evidence that at least associates "Triple A" with these people, otherwise the indictment would not have been issued. That being said, indictments for simple and often innocent association are indeed handed down everyday, and later withdrew after further...
|
|
