While the Hillary trial is finished, there are still many unanswered questions. One thing in particular piqued my interest. During the prosecution’s closing arguments, the lead prosecutor noted …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active, online-only subscription then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you've not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
While the Hillary trial is finished, there are still many unanswered questions. One thing in particular piqued my interest. During the prosecution’s closing arguments, the lead prosecutor noted that they did not provide a motive for Hillary to commit the crime, but that there could be no motive for such a heinous act. A few minutes later in his summation he dismissed the speculation that perhaps John Jones had committed the murder, because he had no motive. Wasn’t this a double standard being applied to the possible suspects in the investigation? I suppose we will never know, as the District Attorney’s office will close the investigation, labeling Hillary as the only possible murderer. This case has been a miscarriage of justice from the start, with a conclusion that leaves me skeptical of the ability of the DA.