There is simply no plausible construction of the known evidence that leaves out Novak either providing a proffer through his lawyer of what he would say if he testified or having testified directly.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The decision that has to be made was whether it was material, whether he knew he was lying under oath, whether he did it willfully. I think that's required of any prosecutor who is charged with an investigation of this.
Well, you know, one lawyer says I'm the only witness and I'm not credible. Another lawyer says this witness - there's tons of evidence that's been available for years.
After the verdict was read in the Simpson case, as the jury was leaving, one of them, I was later told, said, 'We think he probably did it. We just didn't think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.'
Look at Becker and Djokovic. If you look at Novak's record since Boris has been there, it's been phenomenal.
The prosecution wants to make sure the process by which the evidence was obtained is not truthfully presented, because, as often as not, that process will raise questions.
I don't believe anyone has leaked grand jury information.
I think the prosecution had all the evidence in front of them to have won the case.
There is no evidence of any kind except that is directed toward Oswald.
The one thing that's absolutely clear is that Karl was not the source for the leak and there's no basis for any additional speculation.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence.