The Dean Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Thats not exactly how it went down, but if you want to spout off about it going down that way, so be it. I know someone close to the case and can assure you I have more insight on the facts of this case then you... Then again, you must be right as I am sure your education on this case came from Wikipedia or TMZ...maybe some other gossip column somewhere, which now qualifies you as an expert trial lawyer on such subject to make outlandish claims where not a single thread of physical evidence ever existed...you go boy. Or maybe your source, who is close to the case, is TOO close to the case, and has a bias (or some personal interest in the outcome) when it comes to what really happened. But, as a detached observer, I have a question for you: Are you disputing that witnesses changed their story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Or maybe your source, who is close to the case, is TOO close to the case, and has a bias (or some personal interest in the outcome) when it comes to what really happened. But, as a detached observer, I have a question for you: Are you disputing that witnesses changed their story? The media likes to spin that witnesses changed their statement which wasnt the case at all. In fact, only a couple witness actually gave inconsistent testimony. It was BELIEVED that the way he would be portrayed was an active participant in the fight and therefore a suspect in the stabbing. However, upon FURTHER investigation, the assailants were identifed as Oakley and Sweeting by the vast majority of the witnesses and all attempts by the prosecutor to link Lewis to the acts of murdered failed. Even the famed blood trail they were going to try and show failed. Upon further investigation it became clearer that Lewis attempted to interfere in the fight as it got out of hand, but did not commit the act of stabbing anyone. What he did do was lie to the police to protect his two friends trying to protect them, something that I would say is reasonable to expect any friend to do for his friends in the heat of the moment. The only withness to flat out insist (even before the trial) that Ray was one of the stabbers was Anderson who is a convicted con man and was beleived to be trying to obtain leniency on his own fraud case by supplying "information". In fact, he even negotiated for this very thing before offering information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 The media likes to spin that witnesses changed their statement which wasnt the case at all. In fact, only a couple witness actually gave inconsistent testimony. It was BELIEVED that the way he would be portrayed was an active participant in the fight and therefore a suspect in the stabbing. However, upon FURTHER investigation, the assailants were identifed as Oakley and Sweeting by the vast majority of the witnesses and all attempts by the prosecutor to link Lewis to the acts of murdered failed. Even the famed blood trail they were going to try and show failed. Upon further investigation it became clearer that Lewis attempted to interfere in the fight as it got out of hand, but did not commit the act of stabbing anyone. What he did do was lie to the police to protect his two friends trying to protect them, something that I would say is reasonable to expect any friend to do for his friends in the heat of the moment. The only withness to flat out insist (even before the trial) that Ray was one of the stabbers was Anderson who is a convicted con man and was beleived to be trying to obtain leniency on his own fraud case by supplying "information". In fact, he even negotiated for this very thing before offering information. Furthermore...most of the so called eye witnesses that claimed to be able identify Lewis as a stabber in the fight were shown to not even have a view of what was going on and were making assumptions on being able to see nothing at all or just the tops of heads over a crowd and had ZERO view of the physical acts of stabbing or of who was holding the knives...this is where your fabled "witness changed testimony" comes from...no foul play is even suspected by the witnesses in terms of being intimdated or bought off... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts