Nothing mysterious, no evidence. Everyone figured his buddy would squeal to spare himself jail time. Nada. The 17-yo girl in question wouldn’t testify either. Also, she had since started an OF site and prosecution felt she would get torn up as a witness.
However, is this really the same as “no evidence”? -
The recommendation comes in part because prosecutors have questions over whether the central witnesses in the long-running investigation would be perceived as credible before a jury.
Sounds like they did have evidence, but it was more about the reaction of the jury to the witness for other reasons.
Is this more detail on the prior reports of him being a human trafficking pedophile that came out years ago, or something new?
Yep.
Mysteriouslydropped, iirc.Edit: It wasn’t mysterious, there were legitimate reasons.
Nothing mysterious, no evidence. Everyone figured his buddy would squeal to spare himself jail time. Nada. The 17-yo girl in question wouldn’t testify either. Also, she had since started an OF site and prosecution felt she would get torn up as a witness.
After educating myself, agree - nothing mysterious.
However, is this really the same as “no evidence”? -
Sounds like they did have evidence, but it was more about the reaction of the jury to the witness for other reasons.
deleted by creator
I had understood that the girl wouldn’t testify and the DA didn’t want that in any case?
Link?
(You were all thinking it, I just care less about my fake internet points)
I wasn’t