I won't, but then, that wasn't the question, was it? The questions was & is - Do you believe that the source of payment has any bearing on his guilt or innocence?
In fact, I do. As we all know, he may well be found "not guilty" as a result of stunts his attorney pulls; that won't mean he's INNOCENT though, will it?
Unless you want to pretend that every defendant has the same "source" that Scott does, your question doesn't hold water, and is only an exercise in twisted syntax practiced so well by attorneys.
If you don't have access to a lot of money, most high profile criminal attorenys won't give you the time of day, therefore you can't find an attorney good enough to prove you "not guilty," even if you are.