The first part of that is not necessarily true, and the second part is bizarre. Had the trial gone forward (as it should have and as it would have with virtually every other prosecutor on earth), he could have been convicted and he could have been ordered to pay her restitution. With the non-prosecution, absent the error in prosecuting him notwithstanding, he would never have spent a single night in jail. And to be clear, the second prosecution was dead wrong, and should not have made it out of the starting gate.
By at least some accounts, an initial criminal prosecution would not have been successful. The court would not have the benefit of the statements ultimately made during the civil trial depositions, where he could not claim his 5A right against self-incrimination because of the non-prosecution "agreement." Without those statements, there's a reasonable chance he would have been criminally acquitted and wouldn't have settled a civil suit for nearly that amount. That stupid deal did make him admit he gave quaaludes to women, which of course pokes a big hole in his "consensual" argument.
But of course we'll never know for sure. |
