blog description

Topics relate to adult business, the War on Drugs, political prosecutions, censorship, and police, prosecutorial, and judicial misconduct

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

The Case Against Paul Bergrin is a Charade

I must imagine that Judge Martini and the jurors expected to see actual evidence as they sat through a trial that has already lasted close to a month. They must be truly disappointed and feel that federal prosecutors have wasted their time. I know that I view it as time for Paul Bergrin to file a motion for acquittal as soon as prosecutors conclude their case, which could be today or tomorrow.

Prosecutors grabbed attention worldwide utilizing tools familiar to many, including me. They used the media to create a public charade and turn public opinion on Bergrin. They counted on the fact that perception often overrides actual evidence and influences jurors. The reality here is that there is no evidence that Bergrin is guilty of the crimes which he is on trial for.

Today the prosecutors have Thomas Moran, convicted felon seeking leniency, claiming a conversation with Paul as they walked through the Essex County jail one day so long ago. According to Moran, Paul Bergrin admitted to giving Baskerville's associates the name of the informant that was gunned down on a Newark street several months later. I seriously doubt everything that Moran says.

First of all, Baskerville doesn't sound like a stupid man to me. I have little doubt that he could figure out who the informant was in the case against him. It was a drug case and there were large drug sales to the informant (Kemo) and all it takes to figure out whodunnit is to know the amount of drugs involved in each sale and the approximate dates of each sale. Even without that, Baskerville most likely already had an idea. Most drug traffickers realize when they may have made a mistake.

This entire trial is a parade of convicted felons saying anything that seems to fit with the ultimate goal of knocking years off their own sentences. It is a charade care of federal prosecutors – far from the first time it's been done, and certainly not the last. This charade has included career criminals, jailhouse snitches, a mistress involved in drug trafficking with a lover, convicted felons that Paul gave a chance in life and allowed to work in his office, and anyone willing to tell a fictional tale of a non-existent conversation. What it does not include is any evidence at all.

If I were judge or jury, I'd feel scammed.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Vicky Gallas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.