calgary123
Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 228
- Reaction score
- 0
Mercy?? That is hilarious. They LIED to get him convicted.
Who lied? Brad? He swore he killed her!
Mercy?? That is hilarious. They LIED to get him convicted.
Who lied? Brad? He swore he killed her!
Just rewatched part of the plea, and something bothered me. The judge chastised Brad for giving up his children in exchange for a year of incarceration. It sounds to me like Brad wasn't willing to let the children be adopted, but agreed in exchange for a one year reduction on the sentence. Did I hear that properly?
The State lied numerous times in the trial and in the hearing today.
And Brad also swore he was NG
Brad today swore that what the state was saying was true. He was explicitly asked that and he said YES.
If I'm not mistaken that conviction, which you assert was based on a lie, was overturned and up until today, he technically wasn't convicted of anything. He had a shot at a retrial to prove his innocence and be acquitted, instead he plead guilty and admitted to strangling his wife and dumping her body. If you ask me, it's Brad who has been lying the whole time. :jail:Mercy?? That is hilarious. They LIED to get him convicted.
BBM - Link please!The State lied numerous times in the trial and in the hearing today.
And Brad also swore he was NG
At 35 minutes in it is explained why the plea was offered: (1) the mercy of the Rentz's and (2) the trial had cost the county millions already. In other words, they would have gone forward had the Rentz's wanted it though it would have been expensive and they were OK without having to have the expense of a further trial. As well, they'd know Brad would be removed from the US as soon as he's out (or earlier) so the plea makes sense to the state.
Also very interesting that its commented in open court that Brad may not have been notified of the plea deal offered earlier, there's no reason to say that unless that issue could be pressed. They're making sure Brad hears he had the option of pleading earlier. That ball will be in Brad's court.
It sounds to me like Brad was using his children as a bargaining chip to try and reduce his time spent behind bars. As the judge said, repulsive.Just rewatched part of the plea, and something bothered me. The judge chastised Brad for giving up his children in exchange for a year of incarceration. It sounds to me like Brad wasn't willing to let the children be adopted, but agreed in exchange for a one year reduction on the sentence. Did I hear that properly?
It sounds to me like Brad was using his children as a bargaining chip to try and reduce his time spent behind bars. As the judge said, repulsive.
Thanks, but that doesn't support your assertion that the State LIED (your emphasis) to get him convicted. Nice try though. All I'm seeing from Brad's supporters today is a lot of this :deadhorse: and this :ignore:.
what do you mean about the ball in Brad's court?
Thanks, but that doesn't support your assertion that the State LIED (your emphasis) to get him convicted. Nice try though. All I'm seeing from Brad's supporters today is a lot of this :deadhorse: and this :ignore:.
He completely gave up his rights to see them in exchange for a reduced sentence. GMABBecause he wanted to get out sooner to see them is hardly repulsive.
If Kurtz withheld the plea deal from Brad he could be in hot water with the bar. But Brad would have to initiate the complaint.
He completely gave up his rights to see them in exchange for a reduced sentence. GMAB
Because he wanted to get out sooner to see them is hardly repulsive.