So, the charges are dismissed with prejudice, the DEA agent imprisoned for corruption, the alleged victim testifies in his favor. What makes the other narrative compelling? I see people citing the court document in which the claims were made… But what is the value of that document if the result was a dismissal with prejudice? Shouldn’t that support the innocence narrative?
I am genuinely curious. I’m not necessarily advocating his innocence, I want to understand what other people know that makes them so convinced that he is guilty of this.
I have seen this repeated multiple times on Lemmy. When I look this up, I find:
So, the charges are dismissed with prejudice, the DEA agent imprisoned for corruption, the alleged victim testifies in his favor. What makes the other narrative compelling? I see people citing the court document in which the claims were made… But what is the value of that document if the result was a dismissal with prejudice? Shouldn’t that support the innocence narrative?
I am genuinely curious. I’m not necessarily advocating his innocence, I want to understand what other people know that makes them so convinced that he is guilty of this.