Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Deset Gled" data-source="post: 9040844" data-attributes="member: 7808">As much as I would love to see the USPO go after Lanasa, I suspect this is unlikely to result in any criminal charges.&nbsp; While it is very likely that we know who the &quot;mastermind&quot; behind this is, proving it beyond a reasonable doubt is much harder.&nbsp; Forensics are expensive, and that's assuming you even got a warrant to test against him.&nbsp; And even if things went that far, it's possible that Lanasa didn't do the mailing personally (or didn't leave enough hard evidence).&nbsp; Finally, considering that Lanasa has a couple of obvious scapegoats he could present as alternate suspects, the odds of a conviction are slim to none.OTOH, it's much more likely that this will be brought up in the civil suit between Lanasa and WotC as evidence that Lanasa is trying to influence and threaten witnesses.&nbsp; That has a much lower bar for consideration.&nbsp; And it would only need to heard by a judge that has already had to deal with this BS once, not a jury.&nbsp; Looks like it's time keep an eye on PACER.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Deset Gled, post: 9040844, member: 7808"] As much as I would love to see the USPO go after Lanasa, I suspect this is unlikely to result in any criminal charges. While it is very likely that we know who the "mastermind" behind this is, proving it beyond a reasonable doubt is much harder. Forensics are expensive, and that's assuming you even got a warrant to test against him. And even if things went that far, it's possible that Lanasa didn't do the mailing personally (or didn't leave enough hard evidence). Finally, considering that Lanasa has a couple of obvious scapegoats he could present as alternate suspects, the odds of a conviction are slim to none. OTOH, it's much more likely that this will be brought up in the civil suit between Lanasa and WotC as evidence that Lanasa is trying to influence and threaten witnesses. That has a much lower bar for consideration. And it would only need to heard by a judge that has already had to deal with this BS once, not a jury. Looks like it's time keep an eye on PACER. [/QUOTE]

Verification