The trial of Scott Peterson for the murders of his wife Laci and their unborn child Conner is a classic example of a prosecution based almost solely on circumstantial evidence, rather than direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence which may allow a judge or jury to deduce a certain fact from other facts which can be proven. Circumstantial evidence is now at the center of a recent development in mayoral race in Los Angeles between two unappealing candidates.

Keeping in mind how circumstantial evidence works, imagine a scenario where a prosecutor had Mayoral candidate Antionio Villaraigosa on the stand investigating alleged illegal campaign donations. After reading this, you make the call on whether the Villaraigosa campaign is telling the truth about the donations to his campaign from a Florida company and its employees.

Prosecutor:

“Is it true that 20 employees of a FLORIDA company gave individual donations to your campaign to be the Mayor of LOS ANGELES?”

Villaraigosa:

“Yes, but…”

Prosecutor:

“Is it true that the owner of the FLORIDA company donated $2,000 to your campaign as well?”

Villaraigosa:

“Yes, but…”

Prosecutor:

“Is it true that DAYS later, you as a City Councilman voted to review the Airport Commission’s decision to extend existing contract concessions which would DIRECTLY benefit the Florida company and its owner?”

Villaraigosa:

“Yes, but…”

Prosecutor:

“Is it true that when questioning why as employees of a Florida company they would make donations to a mayoral race in a city 3000 miles away the following happened: 12 of the ‘donors’ wouldn’t return calls; 4 declined to discuss them; and only ONE offered an explanation?”

Villaraigosa:

“This is all true, but…”

Prosecutor:

“Is it true that the explanation given by this one employee later turned out to be impossible and therefore a lie?”

Villaraigosa:

“Yes, but…”

Prosecutor:

“Is is true that one of the other employees that was reached by a newspaper investigating this whole mess was told by the donor, ‘Are you sure you got the right number?’ indicating that he wasn’t even aware that he’d made the donation?”

Villaraigosa:

“Yes, but…”

Prosecutor:

“Is it true that the only public response you’ve been able to give to as why 20 employees and their boss of a Florida company would give cash to your campaign was that the good citizens of Miami felt that it is time for a leadership change in Los Angeles?”

Villaraigosa:

“Sure, but…”

Prosecutor:

“Is that the best you can do?”

Villaraigosa:

“ummm”.

+++

If you heard this what would you think?

So far there is no one who has gone on record with a statement that would prove campaign fraud or a quid pro quo that the donation was tied to Villaraigosa’s vote. However, there is certainly a lot of evidence pointing to exactly that. And people wonder why there is so much skepticism about politicians.

For the record, if we put current L.A. Mayor Hahn on the stand to ask him about some of the antics going on under him you’d probably be equally turned off. Oh what fun it is when there is no real choice.

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 28th, 2005 at 7:55 am by Insider and is filed under California Schemin', Brilliant, but uncategorizable. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.