Breaking News: Vick will not admit to killing dogs or gambling

Ragu, my firiend, the plea deal obviously was to avioid further chrages being brought. I have said that repeatedly.
But that was mentioned in the initial stories about the plea last Monday....the "superceding indictment" that was NOT brought against him.
He is pleading to the charges in the "months old" original indictment, not to any potential charges that might have been brought in a new indictment. There is only the original indictment at this point... and that's what he is copping to.
What might have been is irrelevant, except as the leverage the Feds used to get the current plea.
That he will not admit to killing dogs or gambling is NOT NEWS because the story all week is that he is pleading to conspiracy only...
If you read the original stories on the plea arrangement, youo would never have expected him to admit killing dogs or gambling becuase they are NOT --- for the 100th time -- part of the current indictment or the changes he is pleading to.

 

Here's the confusing part: He says he didn't gamble, but he did provide the money for his friends to gamble, and that he didn't share in the winnings. Seems to splitting some hairs. Legally, is there a difference? I don't know.

 

He's desperate, he'll split any hair he can at this point.

 

Puppies:
"The summary of facts" accompanying the plea agreement does not mean he is pleading guilty to killing dogs. The agreement is to plead guilty to conspiracy and operating the dog-fighting ring.

Vick is scheduled to plead guilty to a single conspiracy count on Monday in Richmond. The plea agreement says he crossed state lines to promote and manage an enterprise involving gambling, sponsored dogs in dogfights and bought and transported dogs across state lines to engage in animal fighting ventures. Vick signed his plea agreement on Thursday.

Where does that say he is charged with killing dogs or gambling? It doesn't.

 

Ragu, he is not facing any trial now, until Virginia brings charges, which has nolthing to do with the Federal plea.

He is pleading to charges in the original indictment. No other indictment was brought against him ... it probably would have been had he not made the deal.

 

Ragu.. that bold graf is from today's AJC story. That graf is the terms of the plea agreement...says nothing about killing dogs!

 

Whatever. I'm not a lawyer and I don't give a shit about summary of facts vs. what he pleaded to.

Here's what he has admitted to: He killed dogs. He engaged in dog fighting. He financed the whole damn thing. His dogs fought for money.

He lied to the NFL, the owner, the fans and (according to several reports) his own family. Everything else is semantics and lawyer-ese.

 

Why does he leave out the gambling?

Does it carry a stiffer, or another, penalty from the NFL?

Does gambling give the Feds permission to open up his finances and see what is in there?

Is he going to try and say in the future that he never attended these fights? If he was not gambling, that means he was not there?

I am just typing out loud here trying to figure this out.

 

If someone had a video of Vick physically strangling a dog, he'd be facing such charges. Vick, not any of his thug friends, is the trophy for prosecutors in this case.

Meantime, I'm pretty convinced he financed the operation on his property but I'm not convinced by any stretch he was doing any of the actual hands-on dirty work. He was an NFL quarterback with plenty of hangers-on ready to do all of that stuff.

And the word of a couple of scumbags and his estranged father -- a man who was reportedly unhappy he wasn't getting more money and a better lifestyle from his superstar kid -- mean very little. You can run with that bullshit on a message board, but not in court.