288

 What is in the preceding post seems to fit with similar effort but from the other side which I have mentioned before. I am referring to how the view of corruption of officials seems to be limited to situations of bribery and exclude favoritism, here. Both, the thing in the preceding post and this one seems to be related to losing the meaning of corruption but one through over expanding that meaning while the other through over limiting it. Although the group identity issue seems to have a noticeable big connection with how much favoritism is underestimated as corruption in this country.

287

There is a TV show called Corrupt Crimes which I have seen other episodes of it without having any problem in seeing that title fits the stories. But I have watched two episodes of it today where the story has nothing to do with what one may categorize as corruption.  I wonder if that is to push people away from recognizing corruption even more than how the group identity issue seems to have already taken away feeling corruption here?

It just occurred to me that I could have been thinking mostly about the show titled American Greed when I wrote that I saw other episodes of this show before. Nevertheless, the problem could be even bigger if the corruption category is applied like this for no ulterior motive. 

286

Related to THIS case was the claim of death (suicide) in jail sufficiently verified? It is not just the claim itself but also how the behavior of the guy fits that of someone backed by some power that can pull corruption at such level for him. He did not show efforts to provide an alibi and hide evidences even close to that which someone in his position would do. And the killing he did was also not far from reflecting how dare you double cross me attitude that fits being in such position of power.

Related to a different case, although I may come back to it at some other future time, I still want to ask how often the prosecutor overrides indictment by its grand jury like the prosecutor of the JonBenét Ramsey case did? Unless I am missing that that grand jury had the power to indict on its own, why then did he go there in the first place? How much any other explanation can compete with that of someone seeking an excuse to serve some corrupt purpose but that effort made things worse for him and he was forced to show his original  intention even clearer?          

285: How About This Deal?

  Apparently it is not good enough for THIS guy that he easily  won the fight and beat the other guy but he also runs over the other guy back and forth with his car and then drive with the body of that other guy dragged with the car and finally finish things off with hitting or dropping a concrete block on the head of that other guy when this guy arrives at his garage. Then after what seems the result of special dedication by the honest part of law enforcement there, which involved dismantling the car piece by piece to finally find DNA evidence, this guy gets a deal of 12 years or less of imprisonment. Yes, finding the body of the victim and the concrete block thing came after the deal. But why would one want to make such a deal that early after discovering that incriminating evidence? All what was in the video does not counter the appearance of corruption there and in fact may actually make things fit that view better. Although I am not sure it will appear like that to anyone who really thinks that the allegations of Epstein death and Zimmerman court looked enough as not fake.