🇺🇸🍀Blitzkrieg🍀🇺🇸

Brian Cole Jr. Trial: Circumstantial Evidence Cannot Deny Someone Their Constitutional Right to Counsel of Their Choosing 1. The FBI began investigating a CIA officer. They performed a gait analysis on her that could not rule her out. They administered a polygraph that indicated deception regarding whether she planted the pipe bombs. The polygraph interviewer noted that her answers explaining why she failed seemed rehearsed. 2. The FBI ruled the CIA officer out based on a single piece of circumstantial evidence: a time-stamped video that merely contained the voice of the officer. That video, which was recorded on an iPhone 7, appears to have been transferred to an iPhone 12 and provided to the FBI with consent from the iPhone 12. Because the video cannot directly show the presence of the CIA officer, the video itself constitutes circumstantial evidence. 3. The defense seeks to present an alternate-perpetrator case based on the same evidence the FBI developed against the CIA officer. A voice heard on video, timestamped or not, cannot establish presence, leaving the FBI’s investigation incomplete. The defense is seeking the circumstantial evidence surrounding the video, much of which the FBI never obtained—such as acquiring video from the home where the officer is heard on the recording. 4. To avoid providing this material, the prosecution is seeking to remove Brian Cole Jr.’s constitutional right to an attorney of his choosing. Based on circumstantial evidence alone, they claim that no one could possibly believe the CIA officer is innocent; therefore, the lawyers are acting against Cole’s best interests. To establish this idea, they present a derivative file that merely contains a voice, which cannot, in itself, imply presence. Knowing that the video itself is wholly inadequate to establish innocence, they have introduced additional circumstantial evidence, such as a text from the officer saying they were “coming home!” that occurred 24 minutes before the officer actually drove off. 5. On one hand, the prosecution wants to use circumstantial evidence to bolster their chief piece of circumstantial evidence. On the other hand, they seek to deny the defense that same body of circumstantial evidence from which they are drawing. If that body of circumstantial evidence demonstrated the officer’s innocence, then why not provide it to the lawyers? The prosecution claims that Litson is acting against Cole’s interests so that they can bolster their civil defamation case. But if the circumstantial evidence shows that the officer is innocent, how would that bolster the civil case? The fact is that this body of evidence cannot act asymmetrically. It will either weaken both the civil and criminal cases, or strengthen both the civil and criminal cases. Apparently, the DOJ is not willing to let the evidence speak for itself—and that is likely because it cannot speak for itself.