[Ready4Freddy]

"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?"

Again, not what I asked. I asked whether or not you though that the source of his attorney's fee payments had a bearing on his guilt or innocence, not whether it would have a result on the results of the trial. I try, at least, to phrase my questions clearly and concisely, Howlin. Read them at face value, rather than imbuing them with other meanings, OK?

[Howlin]

Parsing, parsing, parsing.

No matter what the outcome is, he will NOT be PROVEN "innocent;" he may be found "not guilty," but that doesn't mean he IS innocent.

Your question was do I believe that the source of his money has any affect on whether he will be found guilty or innocent; as I stated before, yes, I do. Big money almost always guarantees a better defense, and if you were honest, you'd admit that. If he didn't have access to a high profile attorney, he won't be able to "beat the rap" the way they are trying to.