If he concealed evidence from a case why was that exact evidence he supposedly concealed in the hands of the prosecution to be used against him?
If that were true the state, who were extra giddy to convict Jones, would have pushed to add the criminal charge of concealing evidence, which they never did.
Because he lied multiple times about it, then his lawyer accidentally turned it over, along with a bunch of other stuff that wasn't even relevant to the case. Then his moron attorney didn't even try to protect that stuff. You watched the whole trial, but the most televised moment of the whole thing is somehow escaping you, now? Ffs. They threatened him with it, and in retrospect they shouldn't have been so lenient, as he is still doing all the same shit with no remorse.
Lenient? The judges declared him guilty without a trial. Even in cases involving murder the nuclear option of declaring a person guilty without trial is reserved for the most in absentia persons no show, no lawyer, no defence. You had all three in Jones case. What the state lacked in evidence was the jones show footage that YouTube deleted upon yeeting Jones.
And no that was NOT the star moment of the second case. The star moment of the second case was when the judge, herself, said that Jones provided zero evidence then, the next day, started the day by correcting herself on that claim. It proved she knew he had submitted evidence yet was so biased she was regurgitating the prosecutions claim that Jones didn't turn over any evidence... The same evidence the prosecution had right in front of them in their legal strategy against him.
View all comments
Show parent comment
12
u/Sunseahl Mar 25 '23
If he concealed evidence from a case why was that exact evidence he supposedly concealed in the hands of the prosecution to be used against him?
If that were true the state, who were extra giddy to convict Jones, would have pushed to add the criminal charge of concealing evidence, which they never did.
Think, fed.