Dummit!What Charles Brooks did involved his adult photo collection, but what he was accused of perverting was the course of justice. He got off — was acquitted — but what he did, the judge at London, England’s Old Bailey central criminal court said, was “incredibly stupid.” The judge wasn’t the first to say Brooks was being stupid when he hid his computer and private entertainment material on the day of his wife’s arrest: his lawyer had argued that Brooks was not guilty by reason of being too “stupid” — “He is not, I would suggest, capable of committing a criminal offense,” the lawyer said. Because Brooks had stupidly placed himself under suspicion by hiding things from the police, the judge ruled, he wasn’t entitled to be reimbursed for his defense, which cost him $800,000. “At least on a racecourse, when you back a winner, the bookmakers pay you,” he complained. (AC/New York Times) ...If he’s not even smart enough to commit a crime, how did he make $800,000 in the first place?
This story is in True’s book collections, in Volume 21.
Is There a Problem on This Page? Let Me Know using the Help button lower right, and thanks.
I believe humanity is held back by the lack of thinking. I provoke thought with examples of what happens when we don’t think, and when we do. This is True is my primary method: stories like this come out every week by email, and basic subscriptions are free. Click here for a subscribe form.