Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Long who wrote (288514)	1/20/2009 7:42:57 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794015

She's defending her decision not to prosecute. I've seen similar actions from DAs. OTOH, a federal prosecutor isn't a politician. She doesn't have to run for office, so you might expect her to act in a different matter. But if the decision had gone differently, and the case was prosecuted, all of that information would have to have been disclosed to the defense, and all the information obtained from the interrogation (even indirectly) would be tossed. That might not leave enough left to prosecute. But its unclear from the post whether its "I'm not prosecuting because he was treated that way", or "I'm not prosecuting because the information obtained from interrogations is inadmissible because he was treated that way." I thought the later, but it might be the former, and if it is, than I see your point.