[REVIEW] End of Month Reviews #45 - September 2007 [spoilers]

Tom Russell milos_parker at yahoo.com
Thu Dec 6 18:38:06 PST 2007

On Dec 6, 12:53 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip... at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 1:25 pm, Tom Russell <milos_par... at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 5, 9:01 pm, Martin Phipps <martinphip... at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > He should have told the judge about the ADA working for
> > > Snapp and avoided going to jail.
> > And the judge would have believed him why?
> It creates reasonable doubt.  It establishes that other people may
> have had a motive to kill Fay and Pam.

Which is relevant at a bail hearing in what way?

Again, this was _not_ a trial.  The case never got to trial-- he was
just being remanded, and _not_ for murder, but for the SV charge tied
to the possession of the jacket.  All this that you mention would be a
matter of fact for a jury and a trial, not a point of law for a judge
and a bail hearing.

The confusion could arise from different legal systems; I'm not sure
how things are done in Canada, or the Phillipines, or other parts of
the world, for that matter.

> > I'm sure that Martin and his defense team would have brought that up
> > had the case gone to trial.
> I'm surprised Snapp didn't have Martin killed in prison.

Why would Snapp kill him if Martin didn't have anything that tied to

Also, another reason why Martin wouldn't reveal the undercover plan is
that he would have to prove it.  The only proof he has is the chip in
his neck-- and the chip is the only thing that would keep him alive
should Snapp send someone to kill him.  And since Martin had no
evidence on the ADA even if he did prove the undercover assignment--
not a single scrap against Fisk, even afterwards-- risking his life
to, in the end, accomplish nothing seems highly illogical. :-)

> Martin


More information about the racc mailing list