hawk45
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2009
- Messages
- 10,009
- Reaction score
- 16
So 5 witnesses gave statements under oath at the scene implicating Dunbar. The lawyer then gets the same 5 witnesses to swear affidavits attesting his innocence, although the witnesses have not gone back to the police to recant their earlier sworn testimony or modify it. I don’t know if giving false testimony outside a court is a crime in this jurisdiction but I would think obstruction of justice or aiding/abetting would be on the table depending on whether they lied initially or now. The statements to the police were sworn.
Sure seems like they must have lied either initially or now since we seem to have ended up with such conflicting statements.
These witnesses are in deep doo doo. Lying to the police then going to dunbars lawyer to contradict their own sworn testimony instead of going back to the police to recant...unless the police were torturing witness statements on the scene this is some shady stuff. And if the police were strong arming testimony you can bet the defense lawyer would have painted it wall to wall on social media.
Sure seems like they must have lied either initially or now since we seem to have ended up with such conflicting statements.
These witnesses are in deep doo doo. Lying to the police then going to dunbars lawyer to contradict their own sworn testimony instead of going back to the police to recant...unless the police were torturing witness statements on the scene this is some shady stuff. And if the police were strong arming testimony you can bet the defense lawyer would have painted it wall to wall on social media.