By Bangkok
I’d like to make the case for Keith being innocent since even Satan needs an advocate.
Frank is so biased against Keith that I don’t think he’s capable of seeing the other side.
But WHAT IF Keith is innocent of the charges?
What if the jury sees things like this:
1) Keith encouraged his girlfriends to maintain a garlic-free, thickly coiffed twat.
A little weird perhaps, but is that a crime?
2) Keith enjoyed partaking in poontang with multiple women and eating pussy.
If that’s a crime, then we’re going back to the dark ages.
3) Keith may have lied about being a judo champion and breaking the 100-yard dash record.
Where’s the fucken crime in that?
4) Keith may have lied about his intellect in order to gain consent towards fornication.
Is that any different from a guy who pretends to be rich and successful in order to score some poontang from the local bar?
5) What about the issue of consent?
It sure sounds like each woman stripped for Keith and spread like cream cheese voluntarily, of their own volition. Keith never tore off their clothes. Keith seemed to always ask for their consent before ravaging their twats with his tongue. The fact that they regretted it afterward does not remove the original consent.
6) Keith may have assisted poverty-stricken women from Mexico into gaining employment within the United States of America.
He may have fibbed a little on their VISA applications, but is that any worse than sanctuary states supporting millions of illegals who enter the country with NO application? Keith merely had the desire to help diversify Clifton Park with immigrants.
7) Keith may have lied when not telling women that their ‘branding’ would contain his initials.
How can the presence or absence of his initials be a crime?
It’s possible that Keith is innocent.