-
Fact Rat
HOFer
The charge against Brady is involvement/knowledge/complicity. His destruction of a source of potential evidence can be interpreted if not presumed to be an act to conceal damning evidence against him. He can weaken that by explaining the destruction as "in the course" of standard activity, but the existence of the earlier phone pretty much negates that argument.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules