Lets say your claim is true.
Even you would have to admit the implications are pretty bad, aren't they?
Other than their own admissions?
Can you show by any means that Augustin had already been paid by the R's when the DA then hired him?
Yes and no, HOTYH. For one thing, they were never paid. They've worked pro bono all these years.
But in that interview, one MIGHT get the impression that he hadn't yet. So, Grace asks him flat-out:
GRACE: So at no time were you employed by the Ramseys?
To which he responds:
SAN AGUSTIN: No, we were working pro bono on behalf of the Ramsey family, you know?
Can you show that JR instructed anybody to 'not do any investigation, keep JR and PR out of prison?
I don't know whether JR explicitly instructed them to do so or not, but I know that was what they were hired to do. I can show that much. JR admits it in his 2001 deposition AND one of the other PIs, David L. Williams, was forced to admit that in open court in a different case.
Is that good enough for you?
Why is it suspicious for an innocent to be motivated to stay out of prison by whatever legal means?
It isn't. That's NOT what we're talking about here. We're talking about a concerted effort to hinder a police investigation.
If the DA wants to hire JR's people, that flatters JR, adds to an image of innocence.
That's kind of my point, HOTYH: a DA cannot afford even the APPEARANCE of impropriety. And this, combined with the first post on this thread, is designed to show that it was more than just an appearance.
Maybe you've forgotten, but several members of the FBI felt that the DA's office was operating on their own agenda and that they should have been investigated for it.
How does someone wanting to stay out of prison, who has been put 'under an umbrella' indicate culpability anyway.
HOTYH, be reasonable, okay? WHY would a truly innocent person NEED to have a private goon squad trying to dig up dirt on potential witnesses, and in at least one case, calling in political favors to dirty them up when they COULDN'T find any?
THAT is the question you should ask.
If it doesn't add to culpability, why is it relevant?
If it DIDN'T add to culpability, HOTYH, it WOULDN'T be relevant. Ergo, I wouldn't have brought it up
in the first place! I should think you'd know me well enough by now to know that.
Or is this all an illusion?
You'll probably just take it as such anyway.
This is like a practice for upcoming mock trial, if you're still willing. If not I totally understand.
Just what do you understand?