The man you saw on the video is Ken Gribetz the Lawyer for Shaul Spitzer. And all he is busy saying is that Rabbi Twersky had nothing to do with it. Now, when any lawyer in the world represents a felon or an alleged murderer, he will say everything in the world to make his client look good and take the blame away from him. In worst case scenario he will leave all his options open and not comment too much so he has different options at trial.
However, here you got a lawyer who is only busy saying that Rabbi Twersky is not involved and his client did it on his own. WHAT A JOKE! A lawyer is supposed to have ONLY his clients’ interest in a case, and this lawyer clearly is more interest in protecting Rabbi Twersky, do you smell a rat? Of course you do!
The community paid for the lawyer and they did it for many reasons
2. They don’t give a shit about spritzer taking the fall, they are more concerned with clearing the name of Twersky.
So my question is, even a low-life like Spitzer deserves a fair trial under the law, but how can Spritzer receive a fair trial when his own lawyer is paid by Twersky’s henchmen and the main concern is to clear Twersky? The answer is, they don’t want a fair trial for him! They want him to take the fall for the Rabbi and clear the rabbi.
You still wondering if that town is corrupt? You still speculating how molesters live in that community? You still shocked that within two days the local DA found that the Rabbi was not involved? You still doubt for one second that there are no Under-the-table deals with the local Ramapo government agencies?
Wonder no more, its crystal clear and this will stop! The feds have NOT spoken yet and we will be on top of them that they speak the truth!
i am not going in the whole story on who is right and who is wrong but all i see on this clip is Mr Gribetz talking about his client and at one point, which looks like he was asked a question about the rabbi, he said that the rabbi has nothing to do with it.
ReplyDeleteso what exactly did he do wrong here? and how does this clip show that he is ONLY talking about the rabbi as u claim?
i hope u dont mind me saying this: there is a lot of questions on this whole story and if one wants to contact the rabbi to the story there is other facts which can be used but u just made a whole story and wrote a whole article from nothing.