Which one of those two, the case mentioned in the preceding posts, or Zimmerman's is more deserving for a best picture award? The dramatic effect of the scene when the judge and the defense team where supposedly involved in a heated argument in Zimmerman's seems to be more than countered by that of showing a Jewish person jump the ship then go back to secretly record the rest for incriminating them (Even though this theory occurred to me later, I want to point out that my focus in post 168 was on the issue of deference in treatment with others having the same guilt or accusation in general. Seeing the different treatment or the effort to have different treatment was extended to all of the defendants in this case does not take away the support of the case to the existence of that difference in general. My focus was not on the issue of betrayal or loyalty among the same group of defendants in a case. Notice how I spoke about "everybody else in similar situation" not "everybody else in the same situation". Assuming the same level of guilt in violating the law for that woman, I would have written exactly the same had the case involved only her).
However, against the theory that showing was at least partly intended for that effect by the hardly seems not a corrupt deal with that woman anyway, I found today that one of the other defendants said something insinuating him being of "the Jewish faith"(LINK). But if we take when a defendant pleads guilty as the same date or after when a plea agreement was signed then THIS shows that that insinuation happened after making his PLEA AGREEMENT, which included agreeing on no more than 20 years sentence, and by a period that is also lengthy enough to see the reaction (or its absence) and consider adjustments or taking more advantage of the situation, assuming that was not also part of the original plan to begin with. Then it was also countered by the judge supposedly giving the defendant credit for "his assistance" in the actual sentencing which was the reason for slashing off close to half of that 20 maximum. So, you can consider that as being done as an additional support for the purpose which could have been encouraged and/or called for by how the law enforcement found it easy to pass this and the deal with that woman earlier.
Until now, what I have found are only two camps, the camp of Jewish or supposedly Jewish persons who supposedly helped the investigation, and the camp of others, related to whom I found no suggestion or allegation for being Jewish, who supposedly gave no worthy of mentioning assistance to the government. So, one camp gets the benefit of being seen supposedly assisting the investigation while the other gets the benefit of the sympathy of supposedly being betrayed by Jewish accomplices. Of course, the main defendant, being in the most difficult position, could be allowed to extend showing being betrayed even to the none Jewish defendants but that does not contradict the theory suggested above, because of the capability of the later group to in turn transfer that complaining using the separation of those two camps mentioned above.
It seems like there are other things also in support of this dramatic intention. One thing of the kind I read today is how one of the none Jewish defendants claims he came with that woman but was not allowed to make the same deal or something like that.
In addition to that, I read today what made me also pay attention to how recording a defendant could be good for the defendant especially if he knows being recorded. It fits with how much that case seems to offer leads, that the defendant here would lose nothing by admitting on a recording guilt that can be easily proved by those leads but would still gain the good of the appearance of making something like regret statements supposedly before knowing he is being prosecuted or investigated. An additional benefit for this here is that it can be combined with the process above to make a case for how the other person seems to be also regretting his actions like the recording person except that the latter jumped the ship to get the better deal.
By the way, look at this GOVERNMENT POSITION BRIEF for the sentencing of that woman. Does it really add any explanation of value? You again have to take the government at its word for why cooperation of that defendant beyond the initial tip was needed despite how much the case suggests no shortage of leads. And what about all those hardly seen as other than being exaggerated descriptions for the value of that cooperation? How far the government was from saying that cooperation was the best thing since the sliced bread (Although personally I think calling much of the "bread" of the west as bread is akin to perjury)?
I also wonder if instead of sentencing that woman to one year and one day the judge would have even better suggested himself as none participant in a corruption by showing precision good enough to make that sentence something like: one year, one day, three hours, forty six minuets, and twenty seven Seconds.
