The Defense Calls....Jeffrey Schwartz?
Interesting observations on the ongoing Arkley/ Glass saga in a My Word column by Jeffrey Schwartz- the very same fellow who recently left the district attorney's office. Unfortunately, that piece isn't available online yet (that seems to happen a lot on Sundays), so you may want to go out and buy a hard copy of today's Times- Standard.
Anyway, Schwartz goes on to say, among other things: "...Arkley therefore did not threaten Glass. I see just the opposite.....Arkley never had Glass' vote and never needed it. The only logical thing Arkley could have been doing is threatening ruination of other council members through Glass....If you leave alcohol out of the equation, nothing else makes sense."
There you have it, folks. An anti- Arkley, Glass fan and past prosecuting attorney for the district attorney's office has said that Arkley didn't threaten Glass, although he supposedly threatened other council members.
Of course, he's basing all this on suppositions and trying to suggest Arkley's motivations which he can provide no solid evidence for. He then goes on to refer to leaving alcohol out of the equation. Why should we leave alcohol out of the equation?
Rob Arkley is innocent of threatening Glass, according to Schwartz. If the investigation is to proceed, we'll have to see if the remaining council members felt threatened by Arkley's confrontation with Glass.
I know. A rather convoluted mess based on guesses that no reasonable jury should convict on.
The defense rests.