How would you like to have a test where you give an answer then find the question that suits? In Jerry’s second trial, this is what occurs. Now, I’m not saying that the answer given, along with the question, was not true, because I don’t know the truth. But the way the prosecutors brought in witnesses who had sat through previous testimony, then stated the same version as what they had just heard, sound a bit odd to me.
Case in point: Karla Espinal, Jerry’s bitter ex-wife, sat on the witness stand and talked about Jerry’s criminal activities. She did this because she was facing a long prison sentence and by testifying against him, she would not serve any time. Then, along comes Bonnie Anders, who not only worked for Jerry but had been convicted with Karla for selling cocaine on the side, and was also facing a long sentence, and she verified what Karla had said. HOWEVER, she had just heard everything said on the witness stand so if she was inclined to lie—well, it would’ve been pretty darn easy. For her testimony, she also went free.
Another interesting point about Bonnie is that there were taped telephone conversations and copies of letters where she categorically calls Karla, or Rachet Mouth as she called her, a liar about what she had previously said about Jerry---the same things she said on the stand. She explained this away by saying she said them only because she was afraid of Jerry.
Hmmm.
There were also letters and phone calls to her from Jerry where he said she was making stuff up. She, Bonnie, was proud of the fact that she had kept her HONOR, by not attempting to cut a deal by lying. Then, the prosecution upped the ante by piling on more charges and she had a change of heat, it seems. Lies? I don’t know. I’m just curious about the process. Does the prosecution not wonder about truthfulness when they put a witness on the stand? What guidelines do they use? Victory at any cost? This is what Jerry’s attorney’s said. Has justice become a game.
I wonder.
RSS Feed
