Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share @LunchtimeCrime | Saboteur or Scapegoat?
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
@LunchtimeCrime | Saboteur or Scapegoat?
Click here to reply to @LunchtimeCrime
"Scott was charged under Missouri law for intentionally causing a catastrophe, defined as substantial damage to vital public facilities or buildings. The prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including those very damning witness hearsay statements and Scott's own inconsistent accounts of what he was doing at the levee. But there wasn't strong physical evidence. So the defense argued that the levee was compromised by record river levels and that bulldozers brought in at the last minute to reinforce the levee may have actually weakened it."
"Scott was charged under Missouri law for intentionally causing a catastrophe, defined as substantial damage to vital public facilities or buildings. The prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including those very damning witness hearsay statements and Scott's own inconsistent accounts of what he was doing at the levee. But there wasn't strong physical evidence. So the defense argued that the levee was compromised by record river levels and that bulldozers brought in at the last minute to reinforce the levee may have actually weakened it."
View all episodes
By swellcast.com/LunchtimeCrimeClick here to reply to @LunchtimeCrime
"Scott was charged under Missouri law for intentionally causing a catastrophe, defined as substantial damage to vital public facilities or buildings. The prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including those very damning witness hearsay statements and Scott's own inconsistent accounts of what he was doing at the levee. But there wasn't strong physical evidence. So the defense argued that the levee was compromised by record river levels and that bulldozers brought in at the last minute to reinforce the levee may have actually weakened it."
"Scott was charged under Missouri law for intentionally causing a catastrophe, defined as substantial damage to vital public facilities or buildings. The prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including those very damning witness hearsay statements and Scott's own inconsistent accounts of what he was doing at the levee. But there wasn't strong physical evidence. So the defense argued that the levee was compromised by record river levels and that bulldozers brought in at the last minute to reinforce the levee may have actually weakened it."