Here are John Wilburn’s notes from Day Six
One of the nicest things about having John’s notes is that those who want the details can read them there and I can just provide a bit of analysis.
Regarding Wright’s testimony about the warrant, if he is telling the truth, then Det. Robert’s warrant would be valid, but his methods would still be a Clintonesque evasion of the Fourth Amendment. Legally permissible, but still deeply wrong.
More likely, it will come down to a choice between an experienced detective being incredibly gullible, or being careful not to ask questions for which he did not want the answer. However, it will be very difficult for Broccoletti to prove the latter, so the warrant will probably stand, a victory for which our police should hang their heads in shame.
Even if we take Wrights testimony as true, there is serious doubt whether what he describes would constitute a commercial grow operation. If we accept the characterization of Det. Meinhart of the operation as sophisticated and the yield per plant as 1 pound of smoking material, 10 plants sounds like a lot. However, our own experts (see the comments to Day 5 Correction) tell a different story, and they seem to me to have had real world experience. By their measure, Frederick’s operation would barely support his own use. Perhaps Broccoletti will bring forth an expert of his own.
Regarding the jailhouse snitch testimony. Read it and make your own determination. If you believe it, you also have to believe that after certainly having been warned by his attorney not to say anything to other prisoners, Frederick decided to pour his heart out to complete strangers he spoke to through a glass door on two or three occasions.
Why would he do that? Does anyone think he likes living in jail so much that he would do the one thing most likely to assure he would spend the rest of his life there?
Also ask the question of yourself, if these same people had heard Frederick steadfastly deny any guilt, would we ever have heard of them? Will they also bring forth witnesses to Frederick’s denial’s? Will they admit the video of his interview on the night of his arrest, which is certainly no more ‘hearsay’ than these accounts?
Considering the Prosecution began its case with lies, and has consistently worked to prevent factual information from being presented to the jury, they have no credibility with me.
For example, the prosecution does not want the jury to see the inside of the house, or the view of the outside through the broken door. What purpose does it serve top prevent the jury from seeing for themselves what Frederick actually could see from his point of view, if the goal is to arrive at the truth?
I have been able to get this afternoon off (Wednesday) to attend, but it seems likely that this will be the time of the now useless Jury View. If that is the case, I will rely again on John Wilburn’s excellent reports.