Full Thread: Edgar Steele
View Single Post
Old June 25th, 2010 #413
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tintin View Post
I have been assuming the it is because of use of the (federal) highway system. So maybe that is why that murder must take place or be planned to take place in Oregon.

Why would be important to Steele that what is likely a woman of 80 be killed?
There is no stated motive, then, correct? As things seem to stand now, the US Attorney will merely assert to the jury that Steele committed a crime and hammer home to them how it was to have been accomplished. That the "plan" was (at face value) non-sensical for a man of Steele's intellect to devise (were he capable of considering such an act) will be downplayed, as will the Feds' one star witness, a man of highly questionable repute.

The unspoken motive on which the prosecutor will rely will be that Steele has done these idiotic things because he's "crazy", and the "proof" will be his status as a White Nationalist. Plus, he's a lawyer, which the jury members will hate generally at the end of the trial, if not before.

This is all under the assumption that Steele did not, in fact, do what is claimed. It is fully possible logically that Steele could both be guilty and be the subject of a set-up by the DoJ--perhaps hands-off via its friends at the SPLC or ADL.

It seems totally illogical that the US Attorney would prepare a prosecution depending wholly upon a scumbag informant with no actually damning audio evidence. But it isn't. Think of the "intimidation claim" used to deny Steele bond. What would you say to your wife and son in a similar scenario, and were you innocent? Yet it's spun to make him out as the bad guy, as further evidence of his guilt.

I once served on a federal jury, in a non-political case that involved a person who probably should have been in prison. The US Attorney had absolutely -0- evidence, and relied entirely on the reputation of the defendant and the defendant's friends--most of whom had already been put in prison. Despite the glaring lack of substantive evidence, I feel that we on the jury would have convicted Jesus Christ of any charge at the point the prosecution rested. It can be hard to understand unless you've been there.

Steele, if innocent (and thus far I think this likely), has a tough row to hoe--almost as tough as if he were guilty, which is the position from which he will be beginning the trial in the eyes of his jury. He needs an advocate, another attorney to handle his affairs in court. And I don't mean one court-appointed.

He also (again, assuming innocence) needs the unwavering support of his wife and son. By present appearances, the game plan is to line up every kind of conjecture and spin against Steele, including the dubious Fairfax, without any substantive evidence. They will try to break Mrs. Steele's support for her husband, and thereby any chance he has with the jury.

If he's truly guilty, I hope they put him away.