Anyway, in the 2013 team thread, appoo posted the following:
appoo wrote:Wonder what's going to happen when this thing gets turned on its head. It's coming out that the "Jerry" stuff in the emails that involved Joe were actually referring to Jerry Dunne.
Can we please be careful with these comments? To clarify, it's not "coming out" that the Jerry was Jerry Dunne. What is happening is Spaniers lawyers are claiming that the full context of the seemingly incriminating e-mails against Spanier show exculpatory evidence that he was actually referring to the Jerry Dunn situation. Dunn was fired in 2003, not 2001, which means they effectively talked about this for at least 2 years.
I'm not saying it's not true, but I think we need to be careful with statements like "it's coming out". Don't confuse legal maneuvers with facts. My gut reaction to this is that if Spaniers lawyers thought they had slam dunk information that exonerated their client, they would not be presenting their defense in the media. They would be presenting it to prosecutors on the side to get them to drop the case, but would not want it public so they can still surprise the jury with it. Maybe that's not their strategy but when I see defense lawyers trying to play the media, I get suspicious as to their evidence.