I am Tom Freeland, a lawyer in Oxford, Mississippi. The picture in the header is my law office. I'm on Twitter as NMissC

Missing Posts: If you have a link to a post that's not here or are looking for posts from Summer of 2010, check this page.

BlogRoll

12-11-07: Ed Peters doesn’t come clean with the FBI

You might want to read this chronology before reading this post.

On December 11, the day after the FBI had raided Langston’s law office and visited Bobby DeLaughter, they dropped by Ed Paters’s office for a visit.  He didn’t have a lawyer, but decided to talk anyway.

In his interview, Peters “stated he represented STEVE PATTERSON in an indictment recently filed in the Norther District of Mississippi and could not talk to the FBI if the questions pertained to Patterson.”

Peters was asked about his role in the Wilson case and said he could not provide specifics without talking to Langston and Balducci.   He referred them to Langston to learn how much he was being paid on a “consulting contract he had with Langston,” a “one year contract… to provide advice on court matters to include reviewing motions and jury selection.”

He “stated that the money [paid by Langston] went through his bank accounts and could be traced.”

Oops!

PETERS was asked if he contacted, on behalf of LANGSTON, the Judge assuaged to the WILLIAM ROBERTS WILSON V. RICHARD F. SCRUGGS case.  Peters stated he did not have any contact with the judge in the case.

MAJOR double oops!  This is immediately followed by:

At this point in the interview, PETERS advised he would like to speak with an attorney before proceeding with any further questioning.

No doubt!

Beyond the two unfortunate variances from the truth, his statement that he was representing Patterson in Scruggs I is pretty interesting news.

I’ll say that, given what Peters knew, his personal prisoner’s dilemma wasn’t much of a dilemma.  There’s what he could surmise was happening with Balducci having flipped, that he knew he’d lied twice to the FBI, and that he knew enough of the players (e.g. what a flake Patterson could be, and how many of them were going to be perfectly willing to cut anyone else’s throat– as it were– to help themselves), it’s no wonder he decided to quickly move to take the advantage of being the second witness in from the cold.

Now, I have a question for folks:  Why the heck would the Scruggs team have put this interview into evidence?  What possible help does it give them?  Are they trying to discredit Peters as a witness (his grand jury testimony)?

Here’s the FBI memorandum from the interview.

Next up:  DeLaughter’s chats with the FBI.

 

Comments are closed.